Thank you for this post. My stance is that when engaging with hot-button topics like these, we need to pay particular attention to the truthfulness and the full picture of the topic. I am afraid that your video simplifies the reasons for the dismissal of the two researchers quite a bit to “they were fired for being critical of the AI”, and would benefit from giving a fuller account. I do not want to endorse any particular side here, but it seems important to mention that
Thank you for this post. My stance is that when engaging with hot-button topics like these, we need to pay particular attention to the truthfulness and the full picture of the topic. I am afraid that your video simplifies the reasons for the dismissal of the two researchers quite a bit to “they were fired for being critical of the AI”, and would benefit from giving a fuller account. I do not want to endorse any particular side here, but it seems important to mention that
Google wanted the paper to mention that some techniques exist to mitigate the problems mentioned by Dr. Gebru. “Similarly, it [the paper] raised concerns about bias in language models, but didn’t take into account recent research to mitigate these issues”
Dr. Gebru sent an email to colleagues telling them to stop working on one of their assigned tasks (diversity initiatives) because she did not believe those initiatives were sincere. “Stop writing your documents because it doesn’t make a difference”
Google alleges that Dr. Mitchell shared company correspondence with outsiders.
Whether or not you think any of this justifies the dismissal, these points should be mentioned in a truthful discussion.