zlacker

>>tech-h+(OP)
I don't really understand why it's surprising to anyone that they would face "internal retaliation" after exposing their employer as evil and boycott worthy to the entire world. By publicizing it to the degree that they did and attaching their name to it, they were putting their interests over the company. If my company started doing business practices that I didn't approve of, I would try my hardest to change the direction from the inside out or I would leave and then criticize. I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them.

>>charli+Cf
It's literally illegal. There are laws against retaliation against whistleblowers. That is why it is surprising.

> I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them.

Because you don't want to see the thing you worked so hard to build misused to build killer robots and "war minds"? Seems reasonable to me. Google's got a different mission and sometimes the leadership forgets it, and needs to be reminded.

>>KirinD+zh
What did she do that is protected under the various whistleblower protection laws? https://www.whistleblowers.gov/sites/wb/files/2019-06/whistl...

I don't think that objecting to your company's AI work for DoD or plans to comply with Chinese internet search regulations fall under any of them.

What did the "Open Research Group" at Google actually build?

>>Merril+3j
> What did the "Open Research Group" at Google actually build?

Have you made any effort to investigate who Meredith Whittaker is on your own?

Her work on AI ethics was much appreciated and celebrated precisely because she was a distinguished contributor. The cultural aversion to building weapons is not novel thing in that culture.

>>KirinD+on
"Her work on AI ethics"

What exactly was that?

>>gdy+PB
Do you not know how to use google?

<https://ainowinstitute.org/research.html>

>>depart+sE
You missed the word 'exactly'. Can you summarize her work so that it doesn't sound trivial or bogus?

Just looking at the titles I expect something similar in quality to articles debunked here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09866

>>gdy+oP
So is the insinuation here that if she doesn't meet some arbitrary series of qualifications you put forth, it's okay for her to be illegally harassed out of her job?

I'm reluctant to engage further because it seems like an absurd line of reasoning.

>>KirinD+YV
Nope, you've made yourself a straw man. I hope you did not do it intentionally because it's plainly disgusting. Please don't do that again.

You've said that she didn't just leave Google instead of protesting because she didn't 'want to see the thing you [she] worked so hard to build misused to build killer robots and "war minds"'.

You was asked what she actually did at Google and you've come up with 'her work on AI ethics was much appreciated and celebrated' as a response.

Looks like she was not working 'so hard' on anything that can be of any use for building 'killer robots and war "minds"'. In fact, for building anything.