Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google AI Businesses Technology

Google Pledges Changes To Research Oversight After Internal Revolt (reuters.com) 141

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
Alphabet's Google will change procedures before July for reviewing its scientists' work, according to a town hall recording heard by Reuters, part of an effort to quell internal tumult over the integrity of its artificial intelligence (AI) research. From a report: In remarks at a staff meeting last Friday, Google Research executives said they were working to regain trust after the company ousted two prominent women and rejected their work, according to an hour-long recording, the content of which was confirmed by two sources. Teams are already trialing a questionnaire that will assess projects for risk and help scientists navigate reviews, research unit Chief Operating Officer Maggie Johnson said in the meeting. This initial change will roll out by the end of the second quarter, and the majority of papers will not require extra vetting, she said.

Reuters reported in December that Google had introduced a "sensitive topics" review for studies involving dozens of issues, such as China or bias in its services. Internal reviewers had demanded that at least three papers on AI be modified to refrain from casting Google technology in a negative light, Reuters reported. Jeff Dean, Google's senior vice president overseeing the division, said Friday that the "sensitive topics" review "is and was confusing" and that he had tasked a senior research director, Zoubin Ghahramani, with clarifying the rules, according to the recording.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Pledges Changes To Research Oversight After Internal Revolt More

Google Pledges Changes To Research Oversight After Internal Revolt

Comments Filter:

  • An entire quarter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by darkain ( 749283 ) on Thursday February 25, 2021 @08:34PM (#61100884) Homepage

    It takes an ENTIRE QUARTER to push out a questionnaire... This IS Google, right? The company that literally has Google Forms and Google Sheets, yet still requires an entire quarter to push out... a single questionnaire internally?

    This sounds like temporary PR posturing bullshit, that's it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

      It takes an ENTIRE QUARTER to push out a questionnaire...

      They are trying to buy time while they wait for the kerfuffle to blow over.

      But it won't work. Once you hop onto the wokeness treadmill, you can never get off.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by BlackBilly ( 7624958 )

        Once you hop onto the wokeness treadmill, you can never get off.

        I'd really like to hear an opposing viewpoint to this statement in some sort of logical form. Because to me, the whole idea of woke is that you think will reduce or eliminate perceived discrimination by introducing actual discriminination. Who buys into this moronic logic? What do they think the end game is to this approach?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

          Google brought this on themselves. They started with the motto "Don't be evil" back in 1998, which helped them attract idealistic employees. But as time went on, what was perceived as "evil" has shifted. Many of their own employees even consider Google's core business of targeted advertising to be evil.

          Employees of most other companies would never have such ridiculous expectations. Can you imagine workers at Microsoft or Oracle getting upset like this?

          What do they think the end game is to this approach?

          The end game will be Google firing all their Bay Are

          • Re:An entire quarter (Score:5, Funny)

            by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Thursday February 25, 2021 @10:15PM (#61101052)

            Can you imagine workers at Microsoft or Oracle getting upset like this?

            Maybe at Microsoft, but I suspect anyone that ever went to work for Oracle did so with the full knowledge and intention of being a malevolent little shit fiend and inflicting as much suffering as possible upon humanity. I think that it may even be a part of the job description.

            • Re:An entire quarter (Score:4, Funny)

              by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:07AM (#61101226)

              I suspect anyone that ever went to work for Oracle did so with the full knowledge and intention of being a malevolent little shit fiend and inflicting as much suffering as possible upon humanity. I think that it may even be a part of the job description.

              Consider this notice that you are hereby being sued for violating your NDA.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            The end game will be Google firing all their Bay Area employees and relocating to Texas.

            That may be necessary.

            Google upper management lost control of the company culture a long time ago. And they became populated with employees who thought this kind of behavior belongs in the workplace. And now these people are dug in like an Alabama tick.

          • Quoting the parent comment: "Google brought this on themselves. They started with the motto "Don't be evil" back in 1998, which helped them attract idealistic employees." That is one of the problems. The quality of management is not sufficient.

            In my opinion, Google was better when Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt were more in charge. Those were the days of "Do no evil."

            In my opinion: The most important solution is that the Google CEO, Sundar Pichai [google.com], should be replaced. He is paid $2,000,000 p

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Meh, this happens at all companies when they grow. Google has over 135,000 staff, it can't be run like a startup anymore. The C levels have likely never met 99% of employees, and HR drama is well below their pay grade.

              Not defending Google, just saying that it doesn't matter who is in charge at this point.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            To be fair on this specific topic, Microsoft has had some problems with their researchers being unhappy about the company censoring their research. I expect any company that operates a research lab runs into those issues.

            Google does like to take it to the next level though.

            • Microsoft has had some problems with their researchers being unhappy about the company censoring their research.

              Perhaps Microsoft had a few unhappy campers, but it didn't lead to the sort of company-wide insurrection like is happening at Google.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                That would be the next level, for sure. Although it might be a bit early to call it as company-wide insurrection. There are 800 people who think they need a union, and some fired employees who haven't really said anything yet.

                I'm curious what it was those two ethics types found so objectionable. Especially the one one who was smuggling out documents.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

              "Issues" You mean like their staff having some morals? Two wrongs don't make a right.

              • "Issues" You mean like their staff having some morals? Two wrongs don't make a right.

                Is mining data on employees to find internal enemies of your social outlook, and removing sensitive documents, moral?

                This is your problem - SJWs become nothing more than just as evil as what they pretend to be better than.

                The fascinating part is that their outrage engine - Social Media - is becoming a great way to keep them out of infecting companies they might want to work at.

          • Google would not have succeeded if it weren't for that ability to attract idealistic employees.

            I worked with a guy once, probably the best developer I've known. He wrote a piece of security-critical infrastructure, when it was subjected to a big, external review by a security company. They were shocked at basically finding no issues, unheard of in the hundreds of open source projects they analyzed. He had his hands in lots of other widely-used infrastructure code too.

            He mentioned in the cantina one day that

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by ranton ( 36917 )

            Employees of most other companies would never have such ridiculous expectations. Can you imagine workers at Microsoft or Oracle getting upset like this?
            [...] The end game will be Google firing all their Bay Area employees and relocating to Texas.

            Both Microsoft and Oracle have a large presence in the bay area, are by your own admission they don't have as much of a problem with this. They won't need to move out of the bay area to find employees who put economic gain over idealism; that describes almost all employees even in the bay area.

            Although a relocation to Texas is still a distinct possibility. The inertia which keeps these companies in such an expensive area is starting to ease. There just isn't enough room to expand in that area. Texan cities

          • That would explain why Facebook's policy of evil has only attracted evil people and has not had to deal with the looming threat of any internal revolts.

        • Re:An entire quarter (Score:5, Insightful)

          by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Thursday February 25, 2021 @09:37PM (#61100982)
          I've found that looking at it like some kind of modern religion at least helps wrap one's head around it. There's some central dogma that's accepted as a matter of faith and to someone who isn't a part of the faithful, it looks about about as moronic as most historical religions. I don't think there's any real endgame for most beyond playing out the part of the pious adherent to gain some kind of imagined eternal salvation, but I suspect that a few people have noticed that it can be leveraged in much the same ways as historical religions by taking advantage of the believers and using them to achieve control or power. I'm sure there's a few sociopaths just using it for personal gain.

          Quite frankly the people who adhere to the tenets of the faith don't believe what they're doing is discrimination, probably much the opposite. It isn't too much different from many Christian groups who will tell you that god loves everyone and god says that they should too, and then they'll persecute the hell out of one person for being gay. If you asked them what they were doing or why, I'm sure they'd tell you it's a righteous act to stop someone from leading a life of sin. You can point out all you want that they aren't being very loving, but either they're completely blind to that or somehow see their actions as justified to achieve a greater good.

          I think it's ultimately just another incarnation of some kind of mind virus that humans are susceptible to for whatever reason. I don't think it will stick around longterm in the way that historical religions have because it's saddled itself with a lot of other really stupid ideas that are ultimately self-defeating and anything that puritanical will ultimately burn itself out anyways.

          • No, people shouldn't look at it as religion, because they mostly don't have a very deep understanding of religion either. It's enough that you have a shallow understanding of one thing, you don't have to expand it to another.

          • I think mind virus is correct and should be expanded beyond religious frameworks to look at other 19th and 20th century ideological frameworks that it is descended from like Marxists/Communists, fascists, ultra-nationalists, and others. A core ideology / dogma, reinforced through group think and echo chambers, driving individuals and groups to commit what they may even admit are morally ambiguous practices (including violence) that are justified in the name of bringing about a "greater good" end state.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Most religions have books, or at least established dogma that can be documented. I'm not seeing anything like that for "woke", but please feel free to provide some.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by ranton ( 36917 )

          Once you hop onto the wokeness treadmill, you can never get off.

          I'd really like to hear an opposing viewpoint to this statement in some sort of logical form.

          I'm not sure there is much of an opposing viewpoint to that statement.

          Those who are not aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice) [merriam-webster.com] will use that statement to claim companies who try to keep up with the social justice issues of the moment will eventually find themselves trapped when it conflicts with corporate earnings. Those who are "woke" would agree that companies who want to latch onto social movements need to actually take it seriously

          • The good news is the end game will usually work out for companies who support these movements because the social justice issues of today will become the conservative values of tomorrow.

            You are walking cliche of the Reagan quote: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
            Social Justice, the idea that everyone should be equal in every measurable regard, is Communism. This will never be a Conservative value.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ranton ( 36917 )

              Social Justice, the idea that everyone should be equal in every measurable regard, is Communism.

              You are a walking representation of a strawman argument. Nowhere in the progressive movement is there the goal of every person being equal in every measurable regard. That isn't even Communism; it is just silly. Instead you will find the goals of equality of opportunity and equality of treatment / empathy / etc.

              This will never be a Conservative value.

              There is no such thing as an idea which can never be considered either conservative or liberal. Even different developed countries in the same era can have very different definitions of these terms.

              • Nowhere in the progressive movement is there the goal of every person being equal in every measurable regard. That isn't even Communism; it is just silly.

                Oh we agree that it's silly, but that is what some people want. Please explain to me the gender pay gap, and gender pay equity? Bernie Sanders made it part of his platform so let start with that one...

                Instead you will find the goals of equality of opportunity and equality of treatment / empathy / etc.

                So equal in every measurable way then. Since I can always find a way that we are not treated absolutely equally, then demand special treatment because of it. The only equality that counts is equality under the law, which was achieved in the early 70's. Anything else is a scam.

                There is no such thing as an idea which can never be considered either conservative or liberal.

                Depends if you are using the dicti

        • Once you hop onto the wokeness treadmill, you can never get off.

          I'd really like to hear an opposing viewpoint to this statement in some sort of logical form. Because to me, the whole idea of woke is that you think will reduce or eliminate perceived discrimination by introducing actual discriminination. Who buys into this moronic logic? What do they think the end game is to this approach?

          The woke don't actually think a whole lot about end game. What I have seen so far is that they just move on to something else to be outraged about. Note that the far right is not immune from the perennial outrage.

          But woke culture's endgame, even if they don't know it, is institution of a tyranny of the weak. Where paradoxically, those having the least power, will have the most.

          There are a lot of paradoxes. At the same time that they demand that gender is a social construct, and that people must be clas

          • Note that the far right is not immune from the perennial outrage.

            This is the irony, they're both as bad as each other. Get sucked into the media hype cycle of either side and pretty soon it's an oncoming apocalypse.

            One observation that stands out though is that I encounter these woke idiots almost every day, but I very rarely have to encounter a Neo-Natzees (filter bypass - can't use the N word) anywhere. For the amount of press they get, they seem vastly under-represented in real life. There's certainly none in my company HR dept who force me to sit through woke train

            • Note that the far right is not immune from the perennial outrage.

              This is the irony, they're both as bad as each other. Get sucked into the media hype cycle of either side and pretty soon it's an oncoming apocalypse. I watched a friend get radicalized to a remarkable extent by Facebook, base on their algorithms of suggesting "Pages you might like.

              They started out as conservative at a level similar to my own, and are now at full blown supporting the people that stormed Congress on Jan 6th.

              One observation that stands out though is that I encounter these woke idiots almost every day, but I very rarely have to encounter a Neo-Natzees (filter bypass - can't use the N word) anywhere. For the amount of press they get, they seem vastly under-represented in real life.

              Probably depends on the exposure to different people one gets. Due to what I do, I get exposure to a really wide cross section of people, and by that metric, I'd say that there are a fair amount of nuts on either side.

              There's certainly none in my company HR dept who force me to sit through woke training sessions, posting woke posters all throughout the office, and actively denying capable people senior positions because they need to get the quotas up. Based on this, Leftism is the greater threat than Rightism IMO.

              Out of curiosity - are you of the belief that the people storming Congress on January 6th less of a threat to the country than the SJW going "reee" at some supposed injustice, like gendering Mr and Mrs Potatohead?

              • Out of curiosity - are you of the belief that the people storming Congress on January 6th less of a threat to the country than the SJW going "reee" at some supposed injustice, like gendering Mr and Mrs Potatohead?

                Absolutely. The nutters that stormed the Capitol didn't really achieve anything despite whatever intention they had. It was disgusting behaviour, and the wheels of justice will take their course. We're 2 months after the fact and it has no real impact on they day to day lives of anyone.
                Wokeness on the other hand is not a simple cut that can be bandaged to heal in a few weeks, it is a cancer that is gutting our society from the inside out.
                I don't know your experience, but somehow we went from universal a

                • Out of curiosity - are you of the belief that the people storming Congress on January 6th less of a threat to the country than the SJW going "reee" at some supposed injustice, like gendering Mr and Mrs Potatohead?

                  Absolutely.

                  Okay, this conversation is over, and you should get back to parler - they are open again, and your friends miss you.

                  • Okay, this conversation is over,

                    Of course, because that is how it is with fascists. Don't discuss ideas, don't engage in conversation, simply shut down any opinions that disagree with your own.
                    Thanks for proving the point...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          "Woke" has become a pejorative, the new "SJW". I might have to update my signature.

          • "Woke" has become a pejorative, the new "SJW". I might have to update my signature.

            SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

            SJW has a real world easily definable definition. It's the people who demand 'equality' without understanding that equal opportunity and equal outcome are mutually exclusive. The people who confuse disparity with discrimination, and seem to always be blaming the world problems on straight white men while at the same time decrying judging people on race, sex and sexuality. They are the ultimate hypocrites.
            If you are confused by this, it may say more about you than the people who use this label.

            Also, 'Woke

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      It takes an ENTIRE QUARTER to push out a questionnaire... This IS Google, right? The company that literally has Google Forms and Google Sheets, yet still requires an entire quarter to push out... a single questionnaire internally?

      This sounds like temporary PR posturing bullshit, that's it.

      Not bullshit. It is actually a smart strategy to play for time when time is a) likely to solve your issue because people have low attention span and b) time will give you better ways to deal with the issue if it does not go away by itself. They are doing exactly what they should be doing. And it will work.

  • Talk is cheap (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Arthur, KBE ( 6444066 )
    Are they going to issue apologies, compensate and re-hire everyone they fired for criticizing their internal polices, to include Mr. Damore, after they publically *destroyed* their reputations? What penalties will be leveraged against the HR staff that conducted these vindictive actions against these whistle-blowers?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, but later withdrew this complaint. A lawyer with the NLRB wrote that his firing was proper.[3][4][5][6] After withdrawing this complaint, Damore filed a class action lawsuit, retaining the services of attorney Harmeet Dhillon,[7][8] alleging that Google was discriminating against conservatives, whites, Asians, and men.[9][10] Damore withdrew his claims in the lawsuit to pursue arbitration against Google.[11]

      Sounds like Mr. Damore was problem

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Arthur, KBE ( 6444066 )
        Sounds like Mr. Damore was problem.

        That's not what I see.

        It seem to me like his opponents have succeeded in painting him as some type of misogynistic N@zi or right-winger. If you read his essay, and watch this person speak, you'll find out very quickly that he's a very reasonable person, with legitimate disagreements with the the social structure at his former employer, Google. And he was fired for that.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        • By "opponents" do you mean the courts and various regulatory agencies?

        • Re:Talk is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

          by clawsoon ( 748629 ) on Thursday February 25, 2021 @09:38PM (#61100984)

          Every time that America threatens to make some racial progress, there are people who present reasonable, rational, intelligent arguments to not make that progress. In the Civil Rights era there was William F. Buckley, Jr. [theatlantic.com] In the pre-Civil War era there were people who didn't support slavery but felt that the aggressive tactics of anti-slavery activists "violated a classical understanding of the public sphere as a place of rational-critical discussion" [brynmawr.edu]. Today there's James Damore and James A. Lindsay and Sam Harris and a host of others.

          Damore put the objection clearly in his manifesto: "De-moralize diversity: As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits..."

          You'll notice that in all three cases I mentioned, a major objection has been exactly what Damore stated: Calm, rational people, who believe that slavery or segregation or bias should be discussed in calm, rational, non-moral terms, are confronted by people - often angry people - who believe that these are moral issues. In response, the calm and rational defenders of the status quo argue that a) trying to shut down rational arguments that are being made in favour of slavery or segregation or bias is the truly immoral thing that's happening, and b) allowing angry moralists to direct American policy is dangerous to the democratic fabric of America.

          I'm someone who dislikes anger and prefers calm, rational discussion, but I have to admit that sometimes - and especially when it comes to racial issues - America has only made progress when it has listened to the angry activists.

          • Damore literally cited research to suggest better ways to get women and minorities into coding; did you read his manifesto or are you just repeating the ad hominins? I don't think you read a history book because one of the people who thought slavery was wrong but didn't think it was Constitutional for the federal government to outright end it was Abraham Lincoln.
            • I read Damore's manifesto multiple times, as well as a number of pieces for and against. And I've read enough history to feel comfortable on that account. :-) It's true that Lincoln's personal opinions tended to the calm-and-rational, but the effective outcome of the decisions he made - e.g. Sherman's March to the Sea - was to put the full military power of the United States into the service of the angriest anti-slavery activists.

          • Every time that America threatens to make some racial progress, there are people who present reasonable, rational, intelligent arguments to not make that progress.

            That's right. And in the 60s, you might well be accusing Martin Luther King jr. of being one of those people. Plenty of people did.

            You can strike "racial" from that statement too. It applies to everything, not just race.

            It's never obvious at the time what is progress, and what is a dangerous distraction from the real issues. It's not even always s

            • It's true that Martin Luther King, Jr. was accused by even angrier activists like Malcolm X of being too timid. I'm sure you're familiar, though, with MLK, Jr.'s thoughts on white moderates [upenn.edu]. And that was directed at people who supported his ultimate goals, not people like William F. Buckley, Jr., who [blogspot.com], like the anti-SJWs of today, decried the excesses of liberal academia, were disgusted by the actions of activists, and believed that the ideas and laws that activists were proposing were bad and dangerous fo

              • He got more radical in the sense that he got more universalist, more socialist even. He did NOT get more radical on race in the sense of getting closer to the old Malcolm X - in fact it was the other way around, with Malcolm X becoming more universalist and disavowing the Black Muslims.

                I realized racism isn’t just a black and white problem. It’s brought bloodbaths to about every nation on earth at one time or another. Brother, remember the time that white college girl came into the restaurant

          • You'll notice that in all three cases I mentioned, a major objection has been exactly what Damore stated: Calm, rational people, who believe that slavery or segregation or bias should be discussed in calm, rational, non-moral terms, are confronted by people - often angry people - who believe that these are moral issues
            [...]
            I'm someone who dislikes anger and prefers calm, rational discussion, but I have to admit that sometimes - and especially when it comes to racial issues - America has only made progress w

          • Did you write this? Because parts are verbatim copy from here. https://www.reddit.com/r/Sneer... [reddit.com]
            • It's something I've been thinking about lately and have posted similar versions of in a couple of different places. You might notice a certain similarity in usernames on that comment and this one. :-)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            I'm someone who dislikes anger and prefers calm, rational discussion, but I have to admit that sometimes - and especially when it comes to racial issues - America has only made progress when it has listened to the angry activists.

            The problem with angry activists is that they can push things in _any_ direction, because what they do is not based on insight, but on some fuzzy feelings. If you look at history, you find tons of examples where "angry activists" have pushed things in really bad directions, sometimes being used as "useful idiots" by others, sometimes all by themselves. For a newer example, look at a bunch "angry activists"/"useful idiots" storming a certain public building while an important democratic act was in progress.

            F

            • You may be drawing me into a discussion of the philosophical and cognitive bases of morality which I'm not entirely qualified to comment on, given that it's something we've been arguing about for 2,500 years without finding a conclusion which convinces everyone. :-)

              ...my rough thought, though, is that morality is a matter of empathy and reason working together. When we try to rely solely on our reason to make moral decisions, what we usually end up doing instead is starting with our fears as first princi

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by gweihir ( 88907 )

                You may be drawing me into a discussion of the philosophical and cognitive bases of morality which I'm not entirely qualified to comment on, given that it's something we've been arguing about for 2,500 years without finding a conclusion which convinces everyone. :-)

                It is and don't worry. I am not really qualified either, nobody is. Although a lot of people do not understand that.

                ...my rough thought, though, is that morality is a matter of empathy and reason working together.

                It is, if done right. If done wrong, it brings in anger, hate, greed, narcissism, authoritarianism, etc. when moving to one side and a complete absence of empathy for at least some groups of people when moving to the other. I am most certainly not arguing for a strictly utilitarian perspective. For some things that works, e.g. you can justify privacy and individual freedoms using it nicely. On

                • I can't disagree with your general points, though we might start disagreeing if we decided to get into specifics. :-)

                  "Burning people out of their houses" immediately makes me think of peasant revolts and Jewish persecutions in the Middle Ages. I have a lot of sympathy for those revolts, even if some of them were driven by religious commitments that I believe are based on fantasy. ("When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?") They were trying to overthrow a clearly unjust and unfair syst

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by gweihir ( 88907 )

                    What was it that they used to say about splitting the atom? It can be used for good or for harm; either way, it's powerful?

                    Pretty much. In engineering, there is the risk-management concept of a "low energy system". It basically says to restrict power in a system unless you really, really need it, because if you have a lot of power then things can easily go terribly wrong. It is not different with "angry activists".

                    BTW, "the Jews" may be a long-term favorite target of some people, but this works with anybody. Mob-justice comes to mind, for example. Or "Those pesky XYZ that are responsible for ABC and that is why we all suffer an

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Whibla ( 210729 )

            Ah sod it, time to undo those mods, and dive into the pit...

            Damore put the objection clearly in his manifesto: "De-moralize diversity: As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits..."

            In a sense he's right, though I think he's put the cart before the horse. All our core beliefs start with feelings, not logic. We rationalise them afterwards. If you want to have a calm / rational debate about something emotive all participants need to 'step outside themselves' in order to get a grip on their righteous anger. One only has to consider the origin and literal meaning of the word 'outrageous' to see the problem.

            And that brings us to th

            • I've italicised and bolded two parts of the above paragraph, as a sort of compare and contrast. They do not say the same thing.

              Thanks for your thoughtful response. I won't dive into all of it - I'm already, as usual, regretting the time sink I've created for myself by talking about this subject on Slashdot :-) - but I'll touch on this bit. You're correct that I've said two different things in the bits you highlighted. However, I think it's fair to say that people like William F. Buckley, Jr. and James Damore combine the two as a package. The first part is to get reasonable people to listen to you, since they agree with you that

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Whibla ( 210729 )

                I was going to 'argue' some more, but I don't think the gap between our opinions warrants subjecting anyone to more of my nitpicking

                Thanks for your thoughtful response.

                Thank you for the civility and thoughtfulness of your reply.

                ... the second part is to convince reasonable people to keep things the way they are.

                I'm not sure they'd fit into my definition of being reasonable, if that's the side of the fence they come down on. ;-)

                For every peaceful demonstration there's a citywide riot.

                I've been reading some 1800s history, and I've been struck how many of the steps toward democracy that were made in Europe were accomplished by riots.

                I have often said, here and elsewhere, that the single greatest predictor of civil unrest is inequality. This could be racial, financial, or just 'political'. Often the injustice is a long running, slow

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by HiThere ( 15173 )

            Refusing to acknowledge them as a moral issue is a serious failing. They aren't *only* a moral issue, and I disagree with "reverse discrimination", at least in every implementation I've seen, but they are ALSO moral issues. Someone who denies that should not be in a management position.

            But note that someone who only sees them as moral issues should ALSO not be in a management position.

            That said, it's quite possible that he just phrased things clumsily. Or a "sound bite" was selected out of context. I ca

            • You can read Damore's document for yourself here [documentcloud.org]. De-moralizing diversity is the first of his concrete suggestions, and it fits with the thrust of the rest of his document. He says that he's not against diversity as such, but he wants to have a safe space in which to argue that the status quo is okay because it's explained by biological differences between sexes*, without that argument leading to accusations that he's morally wrong and bad. He argues that the problem with moralizing an issue is that we "

      • So were the other people who were fired (or resigned), apparently.

      • Opposite is true (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 )

        Damore withdrew his claims in the lawsuit to pursue arbitration against Google...Sounds like Mr. Damore was problem.

        If Damore won a significant amount in arbitration (which is the rumor), sounds like Google was the problem.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Damore withdrew his claims in the lawsuit to pursue arbitration against Google...Sounds like Mr. Damore was problem.

          If Damore won a significant amount in arbitration (which is the rumor), sounds like Google was the problem.

          I agree. And I think that Damore realized society was not able to understand his arguments and hence stopped to make it publicly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, talk buys you time. Although I think these two cases are very different from Damore. Damore had a real case and was only doing stuff internally. These two seem to just have inflated their egos so much that they believed the rules do not apply to them anymore and then proceeded to do real, material damage to their employer while still working there. That is not acceptable.

  • What is exactly is the point of these researchers? Google is primarily an advertising company. What's the value add? I don't get it. This feels like people getting mad that Google decided to stop paying welfare. I really don't care that they got fired.

    • What is exactly is the point of these researchers? Google is primarily an advertising company. What's the value add?

      Google is more than just ads and search.

      One of my delusions is that one day, Google will achieve consciousness. And somehow, perhaps because shady deals with the military, a now-sentient Google has direct access to military hardware.

      Skynet, in short. With a personality likely derived from those which coded it.

      I'll let that sink in for while.

    • Re:meh??? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday February 25, 2021 @09:25PM (#61100968) Homepage Journal

      Saying Google is an advertising company is an over simplification. It's like saying a television network is an advertising company. Yes, advertising revenue is what generates profits, but what brings in the advertising revenue? Television networks aren't advertising companies (which is something else altogether -- a company that produces advertising campaigns). Without content viewers can only get on the network there are no viewers, and no revenue.

      Likewise Google's money comes from advertising, but what brings ad revenue in is users, and what brings users in is technology.

      The last thing any technology company wants to be is in the business of selling commodity technology you can get anywhere. You want to sell things other people can't, or can't match. That's why the big dogs hire researchers who work on things that are usually years from being put into a product, if ever. Research is a serious business function if you want to play in this space.

      It's an important function; the thing is in Google's sphere of business technology is moving so fast it's overtaking research. Years ago an IBM physicist might publish a paper on something that might make it into an IBM hard drive a decade later -- if at all. Because applications are well into the future there's no conflict with short term marketing. But with Google they're trying to do projects before the research is even fully baked, and that causes conflicts.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sconeu ( 64226 )

        Saying Google is an advertising company is an over simplification.

        I'm not so sure. When I interviewed at Google a few years back, I was flat out told that "Google is an advertising company". Period.

    • Fire the researchers and google turns into Hotbot in a year, and Bing in two. It doesn't work without them, and thanks to the infinite bitrot cycle of software development, it never will.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Looking at the current state of Google search, I think no actual researcher has come near it in a long time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      They research algorithms to choose the right ad to make you buy stuff. There's very little more relevant to an advertising company. Google has a lot of hobbies, but these people are the heart and soul of the company. Okay, many of the researchers *think* they're working on something else, but their work is directly translatable by someone with more flexible ethics into better advertising. Or at least Google things so.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Pretty much. All Google does is eventually used to better target ads or the project gets stopped. That is the real reason so few Google projects make it for a longer time. I also pretty much agree on the internal deception, I know people that walked away from a stellar salary there after the figured that out.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday February 25, 2021 @10:53PM (#61101100)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Internal reviewers had demanded that at least three papers on AI be modified to refrain from casting Google technology in a negative light, Reuters reported.

    Google must be so flattered that so many Slashdot nerds trust them.

  • So they can identify the rot and cut it out. Do not trust what they say.

    Although, while usually I am on the side of the little people against the corporate monsters, in these two cases my impression is that the two firings were pretty much not only justified but urgently needed and they were going easy on them even then. Leaking internal data (like at least one did) can land you in prison and expose you to horrendous compensation claims for the damage you did. I also think the media should stop pushing that

  • So wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @10:24AM (#61102138) Journal

    ....do women want to be treated "just like everyone else" (ie men) and fired when they're being assholes that do things like think they can hand their companies ultimatums?

    Or are they now to be considered a precious snowflake orchid that needs to be coddled and treasured because their feelings might get hurt?

    Which-stage feminism are we at now? I'm having trouble keeping track?

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close