But claiming that google lost it's "moral compass" just now is a claim only rich people can make because they retire, not quit.
Google is literally the largest, most organized, tracking and profiling company in the world. Which they tend to grow even larger with the rise of LLMs.
Turning a blind eye of that for the opportunity or whatever, and than claim that _just now_ they lost their moral compass, is being a hypocrite.
Right. I have respect for Rene, but going by the "HN quitting manifestos" like this, Google has lost its moral compass at least 50 times at various points in the last 20 years.
The company is constantly changing, but also hasn't changed all that much. It always talked the talk and was eager to tell others how to behave, but was almost never willing to give up any real revenue to do the right thing. The usual justification was that if Google doesn't do it, someone else will (and that someone else is obviously not as moral as Googlers are).
If you're old enough, you might remember that they vocally opposed privacy-violating, disruptive display ads. That was their whole schtick. But that was before they realized there's a lot of money to be made by acquiring Doubleclick.
At this point I assume anyone with more than five years at Google is morally bankrupt to at least some degree. I don't want to paint them as bad people or anything but can't find better words for it - it's so obvious that if you stick around, you are accepting it and likely contributing to some degree. People I still talk to are generally honest about accepting it. I wonder if they will all reneg with this sort of quitting post when the time comes.
I think you're coming from a privileged position - finding a job is extremely hard*, and if someone stayed somewhere that paid well then it's a bit extreme to say they're "bankrupt" morally. Alternatives are finance, ad tech, big consulting, etc. Are YOU working for a non profit?
Agreed, the Google the author described arriving at probably didn't exist in 2017 like stated. It probably was dead by then. But since the author agreed with the politics at the time, they ignored this. Now that things continued to degrade and political winds changed and they have to deal with the negative consequences of some of those decisions, they are taking their ball and going home.
Its really hard to take such articles seriously. Its borderline gaslighting and says a lot more about the author than Google or US politics. In fact, even though I have no idea who this person is, I don't have a good opinion of them after reading this. And that ironically was the exact opposite of the intended effect of writing this for the author.
Welcome to Silicon Valley. We fuck up the environment, we tear apart the fabric of democracy to line shareholders' pockets, and we knowingly build the modern tools of fascist oppression. But look at us! We elected a progressive Democrat!
Or it could be that they want to give people they don't know the benefit of the doubt. I don't really consider it a sign of good character to not do this and the vast majority of people would too. That you didn't even consider it...
I tend to agree. My first reaction to this post was to check the date, because I would have assumed this had been published around 2014.
Google's moral compass was gone long before this man even joined. That doesn't make them particularly evil, but they have joined the ranks of ordinary, publicly traded corporations.
I know Google's track record prior to the DOW contact is far from perfect, but is it really so hard to understand why it crossed a line for a lot of people? Why are we acting like ad tracking/targeting and developing autonomous lethal weapons are morally comparable?
Because HN posters constantly have their outrage meter pegged at 11, and there’s no room for nuance, good faith, benefit of the doubt, or different perspectives, anywhere. Big corporations and wealthy people are all the worst of the worst, nothing less than pure evil, as bad as Hitler or Stalin.
I mean, this guy is probably not a bleeding heart, but he had a certain line and wouldn't cross it. I'm not sure the potshots are really warranted. We all realize they were not bleeding heart do-gooders, but saying you're OK with that but not with certain uses of AI in warfare doesn't strike me as incoherent.
All of my stock has finally vested, and I am independently wealthy enough to signal that I'm quitting purely based on my morals, since there's no way anyone could have known Google wasn't some ethical bastion of hope in 2017.
I think the implication is that their moral compass was disregarded or non-existent until they gained their independence. Therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
People who don't ever consider or speak of morals or ethics are beside the point.
"being financially independent" is a state and a "moral compass" is a function or tool. Two different concepts like red and tomato or yesterday and cold.
> Being financially independent is the moral compass of the financially independent.
I mean, I think you meant it somewhat derisively (if not, apologies), but it's absolutely true. I work for two reasons: it gives me a higher quality of living and it anchors my life by creating structure.
I could choose to not work and be very frugal and probably be ok. But I might have to re-enter the job market later in life due to rising costs after my skills have atrophied (been there, it's horrible; no one will consider you). Or I can make certain that when the day comes that I'm ready to be done, it's at a time when making it to death without financial hardship has a much higher probability. I can also afford to enjoy nice things rather than pinching pennies.
I also know that I have a tendency to spin out if I have too much free time and not enough going with routine and a sense of contributing. Combined with the above, this means I am free to work where I want to work, doing the absolute easiest thing I can find that I still consider rewarding. I don't have to chase money or promotions (I want as little responsibility as possible).
I can walk away tomorrow if my org does something I consider unethical. I can hold out for a position that meets the above criteria rather than taking the first job I see because of desperation. When my previous employer had layoffs, I was able to remain comfortable for six months while only applying to jobs I genuinely wanted.
There's no amount of money that a Meta, Google, OpenAI, etc could offer me because even though it'd be nice to own a house in the Bay Area, I'm satisfied renting until death and don't need more than the very nice spacious home I've already got. I hit the jackpot and I'm grateful every day.
However its the statement that "Google lost its moral compass" has never really been true.
Its pretty clear at this point that companies solely respond to economic tides, which are governed by what people truly want. And Id argue that people in general have lost their moral compass (in the sense of how they vote, in politics and with their wallet, not what they say)
Yeah, it's wild to be writing a post like this in June 2026. Even if he thought Google was somehow still salvageable, how did he justify staying there after Google immediately bent the knee to Trump with the $1 million bribe a year and a half ago?
I mean, it is quite obvious for years that Google is now classical immoral tech corporation, which now means current administration servant. They changed their code of conduct in 2018 along with they “Don’t be evil” to “Do the right thing” because world is not "black and white". This obvious shift into moral ambiguity with then changed code of conduct should signal the shift in policy. Eight years ago. Not even mentioning their actions.
This is not about "believing in anything" other than a stable job and money. I respect the author that he felt this moral tradeoff was enough.
I'm afraid, we cannot expect anything else from every publicly owned company, because sadly, it's in human nature to be selfish if you are not the one who suffers from your actions.
"And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!"
Sorry this is one of those things that bugs me - but "don't be evil" was never removed from their code of conduct. It's placement was moved though from the start to the end, and you could argue whether it's less important because of that if you want.. but it is still there.
I actually did this. And that's why I feel confident calling out people like the guy in the article who enjoyed the upside and then do this performative cringe.
I quit my job working for oil and gas companies, and taught myself how to code and then worked at a company that actually made non-asshole software that went on to IPO so things worked out.
I didn't choose to help oil and gas companies, the company I worked for had them as customers so the work I did helped oil and gas. I chose to give up the money and do something else.
So I don't give a fuck about downvotes. I actually lived it, and I don't give a fuck anymore either to call people out.
Personally, I don't get why people blindly reject any collaboration with the military. I understand that they are pacifists, but I still don't get it. When I look at history, I see so many tragedies caused by being weak. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were able to invade Poland, for instance, and the Katyn massacre is a national scar. And who wouldn't want to defeat invaders like Genghis Khan? Have you ever heard of the Yangzhou massacre or the Three Massacres of Jiading? Why would we let civilization succumb to barbarism?
Don't get me wrong. I hate war. And never-ending wars like the Iraq War anger me to no end (and for that matter, I think G.W. Bush and his cabinet were truly evil). Of course, the danger is real; a military built for defense can easily become an instrument of tyranny or empire if left unchecked. That is why we must maintain rigorous civilian oversight and strict checks and balances over its power. But that does not mean the military, by default, is always evil, right?
It's because Americans and many Europeans under the shield of the U.S. military and have never in their lives felt a moment of fear about external threats.[1] They never have to meaningfully confront the central fact of their existence: that they enjoy a vastly disproportionate share of the world's bounty in a way that would be impossible without overwhelming military power. I suspect people living in say Ukraine don't talk like this.
In EU countries where war with Russia was seen as possible, for example, here in Sweden that is not the case.
The military preparations this fear leads to take a very special form though: investment in actual defence, commitment to stay behind and fight in case on an invasion, that sort of thing.
Obviously working on defence technology is part of this, but it also shapes the direction of the defence technology you work on. Sweden's forces have looked rather different from forces that intend to conduct offensive wars, especially historically. Tanks specifically designed for conducting ambushes are one example. Artillery emplacements designed to sink invasion fleets and to resist direct nuclear attack are another.
The Colonel Jessup character was guarding a fence in Cuba. Seriously. Cuba. Imagine hearing that sanctimonious speech about "the manner in which I defend you" and then you find out it's a fence in Cuba.
There hasn't been an existential threat to the United States since the Civil War, and that one was self-inflicted. Obviously we need to maintain a military but 99% of what the current military does is either for economic goals or hollow national pride.
Cuba is less than 95 miles from Florida and was aligned with a hostile nuclear superpower. The possibility of using Cuba as a base of operations for an attack on U.S. soil is the closest the U.S. has ever come to a significant foreign threat.
And guantanamo bay is on the south side of Cuba, not even between Cuba and the US. There has never been fighting there over 100 years. These days it's most famous as a convenient legal location to do torture.
Aaron Sorkin unintentionally created some phenomenal performance art with the closing of that movie and various educated people seeing Jack Nicholson's character as some sort of hard defender of freedom.
It's relevant to the macho point of Jack Nicholson talking a bunch of shit about how he defends us. The Guantanamo base is irrelevant except, as previously noted, a convenient location to do torture.
Regarding the larger relationship.. bro, it's not the 1960s. Nobody is even trying to put nukes in Cuba and we could have easily established normal relations at any point in the last 50 years. The only reason that they are "enemies" is because we can't let go of a grudge going on 75 years that is completely irrelevant in today's world.
Isn't every nuclear bomb an existential threat to all human life? How can one say there are no existential threats while countries people consider "The Enemy" have enough nukes to kill all human life multiple times?
Also global warming is an existential threat. It's really telling how little people care about the world's problems not seeing their very own existence endangered.
In the case of Global Warming its happening to slowly for most people to perceive it as threatening. Even though it massively is.
For Nukes thats just a given nowadays, humans have a remarkable ability to adapt to constant threats. Not in the sense of being able to do something against it but to know it exists and not be terrified every single day. So many things can threaten human life that exist around us and yet we do not get scared after some time anymore atleast not constantly. Look at people living in Australia the entire ecosystem is basically a giant threat to anyone living there. Look at people living in earth prone regions of the world. People adapt and keep on living their lives. This is a fundamental human skill.
True! This is precisely what really annoys me about humans, because it makes humans not care about many things, and it's a skill I struggle with, which causes constant anger and helplessness on my side of things. But I guess it's what allows people to have hope and being whimsical, happy and whatnot.
In this specific instance, this is the military of a country different from the one of the author. A country that is increasingly hostile towards its allies and does weird shit on the international stage that is difficult to justify.
> When I look at history, I see so many tragedies caused by being weak. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were able to invade Poland, for instance, and the Katyn massacre is a national scar. And who wouldn't want to defeat invaders like Genghis Khan? Have you ever heard of the Yangzhou massacre or the Three Massacres of Jiading? Why would we let civilization succumb to barbarism?
Well, what if people had refused to lend their talents to Hitler or Genghis Khan?
Yes, that was already the first scenario presented. I was presenting a different one to help you understand how someone could reach the opposite conclusion.
I have thought about this a lot, and concluded that the peace we have today largely stems from all major powers having nuclear weapons, and leadership in each understanding that avoiding nuclear war is the utmost priority. All foreign policy choices are aligned to prevent military confrontation and avoid nuclear war. Thus there is an overemphasis to resolve disputes through diplomacy. But the plebeians do not understand this, they assume the peace today backed by nuclear weapons is genuine and permanent, they don't consider the nuclear weapons hidden underground, and advocate for policies like pacifism that do not reflect reality.
This quote sums up the current situation:
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.
Economic interdependence is also a big factor. If you depend on someone selling you things or buying them from you, you have a lot more to lose by invading them.
It has some truth to it, but it doesn't survive looking at European history. In 1913 Germany and Britain were each other's largest trading partners, but a year later they ended up fighting each other in WWI. They fought again in WWII. Nuclear deterrence is a better explanation of post-WWII peace.
Yep. People want to believe this, because it means the world will generally become more peaceful as it becomes more integrated. But the numbers just don't hold up -- the closest trading partners are just as willing to go to war as anyone else.
This is an academic point. The US represents one third of the world's military spending because it uses force to further the economic interests of the elite. To work in a "defense" supplier is to support this.
I can't speak for anyone else, but as a Christian, it's really quite simple: any death that you help cause is a black mark on your soul. Maybe you can repent for it, someday. But it's not something that will just be let go when the day of reckoning comes.
Incidentally, I'd feel the same way about killing someone in self-defense.
As someone from a Catholic country I always find hard how we mix that peaceful message with was was done in destruction to this day in the name of spreading faith since the ruling religions changed a few centuries ago.
I thought accepting and believing in Jesus as Lord was all you needed to enter heaven?
John 6:40 (KJV) 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Do you honestly think you're raising a novel point and not just being trite? If so, try reading Luther's Concerning Christian Liberty, where he dispenses with this argument. Or if you want a short version of what he says, if you just claim to "believe in" God but that doesn't affect your behavior in any way, then you don't really believe.
I'm certain I could not raise a novel theological perspective on Chrstianity even if I devoted my entire life to it. But from what I can tell, killing is not a black stain that precludes you from salvation. God is good, and He is forgiving.
OK, but part of repenting for something is genuine contrition, which is not really incompatible with knowing it's wrong but doing it anyway since you read that you can be forgiven.
You have to seek forgiveness and truly understand the nature of your transgression against your fellow man, not be like "welp, collateral damage is just part of the job."
Sure, I'd say that's a requisite for believing in Christ. But like I said, that belief can be sparked after what seems like any number of transgressions.
If you believe something, that will obviously have consequences on your actions, so there's obviously no inconsistency between the verse you quote and what he said.
Sure there is. They're a Christian, and think any action that causes death directly or indirectly condemns you to hell, and it's not given that you can repent. But scripture says belief in Christ will save your immortal soul, and that God is forgiving and merciful. That is not consistent with OPs views, who puts salvation as a "maybe" if you've caused death. If you find a genuine faith in Christ after the fact, you will be saved.
But scripture also says that many people will believe that they are holy and will be saved, and won't be, and this is one of Jesus's parables.
So it's far from clear. People who believe will have works, this is also something with scriptural support. So if you are doing harm, such as by killing people, you probably don't.
In a life-or-death situation, maybe a Christian could make the decision to take another life, then spend the rest of their life burdened by the guilt and sorrow of breaking the unambiguous 6th Commandment. There is room for repentance in this context.
That is *far* from the reality of the "defense" industry, however. Making widgets so that some dude at a computer terminal has an easier time drone-striking buildings full of kids halfway across the world is, essentially, evil.
Indeed, I hear you 100%. It may be painful to watch "your" military engage in wars that are not righteous, from one's perspective. Are there even "righteous" conflicts these days? But short of demand to abolish all state military, what is appropriate way to express one's indignation? Hopefully all can agree that such demand would be insane; but why, then, those "pacifist" performances, which effectively are calls to deprive military of the best weapons, people, thoughts, strategies, are not considered insane?
Agree or disagree with particular foreign policy or military action, why do people forget that the bulk of military is staffed with their fellow citizens? Many of whom aren't terribly privileged to enjoy ample alternative choices to elevate themselves socially or financially. It is exactly this lot who benefits the most from DEI policies, cherished by "pacifists", is it not? It is them who are the first and most massive direct casualties, caused by not having access to the best, superior materiel, doctrine and training on and beyond the battlefield.
I'll be the first to point that military and paramilitary forces attract many with unchecked lust for violence. That "pride", "honor" and "patriotism" are often terribly misused, to uphold goals of those with impure, malicious ambitions. Who, I grant it, also disproportionately represented in the command echelons of military and beyond. But if we are honest, that scum won't be shaken or taught a lesson by SotA technology being withheld from their use or corporation refusing cooperation. It is their subordinates, who, maybe naively, subscribe to "ideal", unquoted interpretation of Pride, Honor and Patriotism, will bear the brunt of being crippled (by the consequences of the withholding and refusal) on the battlefield, and pay with their lives. Don't their lives matter?
Same for me. It is the spectral signal of LLM writing. I'm a writer and last week I re-read one of my own books, that was written a few years before LLMs appeared. And I saw I used the "It's not X; it's Y" construction and I cringed, and now I have a moral dilemma: it feels so painful LLM robot speak that I want to rewrite that sentence for the next edition. But on the other hand, I want to keep it in because it is what I wrote and it was me talking not an LLM. Oh the moral dilemmas one must face!!!
What’s painful is that you’re thinking of letting robots suppress your authentic voice. Also, they got that way by copying humans, and if you continue to cede to them everything they copy, you’ll have no place left to be.
There used to be (is...?) an xkcd IRC chatroom where you were only allowed to post things that had never been said before. Violations resulted in an n-minute ban, increasing with each violation.
Maybe this is the future of all (interesting/worthwhile) human writing. Perpetually stay one step ahead of the machines.
Surely there are times when using that pattern is a great way to communicate the point to be made. The problem is LLMs over-use it and apply it in lots of cases when it's not appropriate.
My low-confidence theory is that it's an artifact of making the LLMs better at coding.
My two cents: think carefully if that pattern is a really great way to say what you want to say in your book. If it is, leave it, if you could say it better, change it.
How LLMs write and how people feel about them is evolving and the current dynamic will pass...
Chatbots can be prompted to write into all kinds of styles, this is just their default "help me with the homework" presentation. It doesn't make sense to drop some construct where it is appropriate just because bots overuse it.
The author might be human, but used an LLM to help them draft the letter. Something I do sometimes is brain dump into an LLM and have it help me organize it, and then I iteratively refine what I want to say.
20 some odd years ago I read zen in the art of motorcycle maintenance, and it made the point that writing is hard when trying to decide what to say and how to say it at the same time. Just stuck with me. Brain dumping into an LLM is one way to get some momentum.
That said, the negation parallel pattern LLMs overuse drives me nuts and I'm always having to manually edit those out. I can't help but wonder if there is an advantage to thinking like that that helps with coding. E.g. defensive negation in coding probably improves code quality, but it dilutes good writing when over used.
That example flowed well and didn't stand out to me.
But what happens when you no longer feel that you have a decent chance of being able to determine that something might have been created with LLM assistance? Do you not mind because you can't tell anyway, or do you refuse to read anything at all for fear of potentially consuming some LLM assisted work?
I'm fine with it as long as it's not full of the usual signals, because that's just bad writing that I don't enjoy.
I had exactly the same thought yesterday. For now the "its not Y, its X" idiom is a strong LLM marker. It should be fairly simple for the brain trust at the labs to get rid of it, and I'm sure they eventually will when prose writers becomes a relevant enough customer base.
It already is very hard to identify AI text, and we probably consume a lot of it unbeknownst to ourselves. Its like microplastics now -- you can find it everywhere (or so the propaganda goes).
I don't have a solution for when they fix that stupid idiom. I'm already reading less current things in general because of this, and might just do more of that. Even if its impossible to distinguish, I think people will pro-actively mark their stuff as LLM-free. There isn't a tech to support/prove that rn, but there might be in the future.
Google removed "Don't be evil" from its Code of Conduct in May 2018. Shocking that it took 8 years for the author to make their ethical stand -- during which time Google stock went up 600%...
No it didn't, it's still in the employee handbook. As the saying goes, a lie will go around the world before the truth can put its pants on.
What changed was Google's motto, and it changed from "don't be evil" to "do the right thing". The given reason is that the prior motto also included inaction.
As someone who worked at Google, it is absolutely ridiculous to claim Google only lost its moral compass in this decade, let alone suggest it HAD its moral compass in 2017 when the guy was wired.
He is a top expert on a security topic. Running Android platform security gives him an opportunity to have incredible positive impact for many people---which he did for a decade.
People weigh trade-offs.
At the beginning, he may have had high ambitions to deploy interesting, research-forward ideas to Android; at this point, he has accomplished a lot of that. Maybe now, he is considering other factors.
Guessing that people are only money-driven or have made some decision because of threshold personal wealth is awful, especially if you do not know them.
Almost all academics I know (I am one also) are driven by personal curiosity, intellectual ambitions, a need to identify and solve problems, and a strong desire for positive contribution. I know Rene and believe this to be true of him.
I’m not in the minority anymore it seems. The general attitude in this thread, “negative” though it may be, represents a far more grounded and blunt truth of the matter.
I’d just like to add, as always: this person should give back all the money Google paid them. Of course, that has not once happened in the history of these pious pieces, and so the meme endures.
I see everyone coming up with an arbitrary date of when Google lost their moral compass that aligns with their own moral compass. In that vein, I feel like when Brin and Page released a paper stating how PageRank could never be beneficial to a consumer with ads and then launched an ad company powered by page rank is when Google became evil.
Google's whole business is built on top management abandoning its moral compass. Sergey Brin and Larry Page wrote that "advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers". Then they got into advertising anyway.
> At the moment, my main focus is [...] fighting against (governmental or corporate) mass surveillance
While he always had "Ethics in Computer Science” as an interest, I wonder what blinds people into accepting offers at Google -- the advertising company. I want to take his words as sincere, but Google has been privacy violating for longer than his tenure with android. Money and prestige is a hell of a drug I suppose. He could very well work for grapheneos but no money or immediate persteige there (sadly).
I mean, I get it. I have a family, financial obligations, etc. Certainly not shaming anyone for fulfilling those obligations working for a successful company. But don't put yourself up on a pedestal and cloak yourself in righteousness behind a veil of strong morals
US government is openly hostile to Europe. The Greenland crisis was only few months ago. Before and after that, it was just a stream of insults and attacks.
To be fair, US government was OK with Orban and tried to help him stay in power. It is OK with authoritarian far right movements and is trying to help them too. But, if you are pro-democracy European, US is a hostile country trying to destroy your democracy.
I've used Google for twenty odd years and not had problems. I get a lot of value from search, gmail and the like. I'm not sure working the the US govt/defense is that evil.
I’ve known enough googlers to know there’s problems in that department. The worst being a friend was married to an SRE and he was fucking nuts. As in disturbingly Ayn Rand and eugenics.
The majority of carbon offsetting efforts are called non-additional assets. A forest that was never going to be cut down or an unusable field in the middle of some rural area sells credits to companies to "offset" their carbon emissions. This doesn't actually create any net benefit to the environment. The industry also experiences fraud with double counting the same assets as some vendors will sell the same offset credits to multiple corporations.
I want to see more of "I'm rejecting this offer to work for Google bc my moral compass" not from folks who are paid out and ready for the next thing already.
its funny how long some people wait to decide the company they work for has lost their moral compass. "dont be evil" is already 8 years dead at this point.
I mean, I get it. I have a family, financial obligations, etc. Certainly not shaming anyone for fulfilling those obligations working for a successful company. But don't put yourself up on a pedestal and cloak yourself in righteousness behind a veil of strong morals.
I refused an interview from google in 2010ish, because it was already dubious with all the tracking and advertising they were doing, as well as the rising censorship.
So if you decided to go in 2017 with all that happened since, your moral compass was already broken with google's. Snowden already revealed what all that data was used for with program like PRISM. You already seen the total lack of interest in preventing scams in their ads as long as it brings money. You've seen the antitrust fines. The tax avoidance schemes. The election influence concerns over youtube content.
What I read is "I know have made enough money from Google immorality, I can virtue signal by taking an early retirement and pretend I'm a great person".
This take I can get behind. Google's leadership has been total garbage for at least 15 years. My experience as an employee of one of Google's closest business partners was that it started going south in 2008-ish and was certifiable by 2010.
These people who act like it's all suddenly gone down hill weren't there or weren't paying attention. If someone believes Goog's only turned to shit since about 2017, they were mislead, probably by the paychecks that kept them from looking too closely.
would you allow that it was bad enough to be fairly labeled garbage in 2011, yet could you still concede it has degraded significantly further since then? Or are you arguing that not only was it bad in 2011, but you are contending it hasn't (also) become worse?
The PRISM stuff about google was mostly BS. The only thing was the non-encrypted traffic on “dark” fiber between data centers. And some may have been a reference to systems to comply with court orders via the DOJ which everyone of any scale does (eg a “wiretap” on a Gmail account).
I do find it amusing when I see these LinkedIn fodder posts saying “I left [Meta/Google/OtherGiantCorp] because the company I joined 10 years ago doesn’t hold the same values anymore” as if these companies weren’t already fucked up evil pieces of shit many years before you joined. People are always trying to justify that they aren’t working for something purely evil. I guess you have to try to feel like that giant pile of cash on offer isn’t dirty money and you need validation from others to sleep at night
Google will want him terminated immediately and will probably make him some settlement (combined with a threat) to keep his mouth shut, going forward. Meanwhile, the media will be clamoring for interviews and more sound bites.
Not at all. He made his money, so now he can act all morally superior even though we've all known Google to be a menace since long before he started there in 2017. This article is downright ridiculous.
Google's entire "do no evil" bring your own identity to the job and all of that was pure marketing to hire better engineering talent.
Instead of monetising software sales, they monetised access to Free software performing an end run around the GPL by distributing access to it over the internet allowing them to make the public good proprietary google property. They threw out some crumbs at best.
Remember the un-publicised puzzles to paradoxically get media attention, hiring highschool kids with a demo that made the news because it made the news and all the rest of the BS. I guess it worked. Now they're big and bad and the Free software optimism is largely dead so they don't have to bother and now make killbots for the Pentagon.
Where else you gonna work? Go test the market, nerd.
That was a crazy period when Google first fired him, then fired people criticising him, and then fired people criticising the people that just got fired.
But let's be honest, the guy was kind of unhinged. I would not have fired him, but neither would I have kept him in my team.
I agree, internally, looking at a fuller picture of his activity, he was off. Constantly bringing the subject up out of context, starting fights, etc. but they should have just warned him.
I'm sure he's just overjoyed to be tried without representation or evidence in the court of public opinion, a big step up from being punished with no process at all.
He wasn't unhinged, he somewhat clumsily posted evolutionary biology literature fragments on a channel where it would offend parts of the readers.
In response to a "let a thousand flowers bloom and speak your mind" request from Google management snakes. The problem is that some tech people take these requests seriously.
Google of course has identified itself as Trump sycophants and hypocrites by now. Maybe they should invite Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad and Elon Musk to give keynote speeches.
What other things did he do to make you believe he was “kind of unhinged”? I know about the memo thing, but I think it was covered in an inflammatory way because the press loves to play up a controversy. What else besides the memo incident did he do that merits his firing?
Damore had been aggressively arguing about this stuff internally for some time in advance of his doc. The doc was consistent with a pattern of "makes a huge stink of things in every training and refuses to back down."
Okay, here's what I still don't understand. Were the things he was “making a huge stink about in every training” true or false? Reports at the time claimed that he was ”perpetuating harmful stereotypes,” but other reporting claimed that he was pointing out facts that inconveniently challenged the cultural orthodoxy and then wrote the doc to clarify his feedback, and so he became a target for internal activists. Are you aware of any specifics that would allow a reasonable person to lean one way or another as to the reality?
That is hard for outsiders to know. Google however seems to foster cancel mobs.
Python core people like Thomas Wouters and Gregory P. Smith, since fired from Google, canceled and libeled people like Tim Peters. All that matters is having a mob on your side and preventing the other side from responding.
By all means, explain what else he did. I've seen this claim made repeatedly on hacker news, but conspicuously noone seems willing to o substantiate those claims.
In my experience, Big Tech's billboard to "bring your best self" was just to get super eager people with great skills into their ranks to help accelerate business. Once you're on the inside, it's quite clear that's a farce and in fact, you should keep your mouth shut and your head down.
Had a coworker at a bank that was trying to emulate Tech (Capital One - all in on AWS and PIPs) who bought into it. Ended up PIPed and then is doing a PhD in a completely unrelated field.
We had a mental health slack channel, and a racial politics one that rehashed Israel/Palestine daily.
We had one of those. Not slack, self hosted internal stuff. Some "senior by tenure but not title" people decided the only thing that could come of it was people running their mouths to everyone's detriment and start trolling it until nobody took it seriously and then it was quietly "collateral damage" in a migration that was also arranged.
I think they were afraid of touching what had started as an anti racism channel until the vibes had shifted a bit.
There were both Palestinian employees and an IDF veteran Israeli employee who were seemingly spending half the workday discussing October 7th and the Intifada.
Thank you. I was afraid that people will eventually forget about that point of inflection. I think for many of us, the specific event was what made us realize that you really can't separate technical issues from political ones.
I think if Damore had limited his criticism to the corporate DEI (which I found to be a bit heavy-handed and prone to critical theory groupthink) in a short doc, he probably would have been a bit more successful (in helping Google rein back its DEI training).
One rarely stated thing I learned over time working there is that managers read eng-misc and will prevent you from transferring to their team if they didn't like what you said, or how you said it, or who you said it to.
Considering they rolled back DEI along with everyone else after Trump's second victory, it's difficult to view those previous "values" as anything other than cynical kissing-up to the previous holders of power.
For what it's worth, I think for an organization that size that needs the best talent from anywhere, It's probably much better to discourage political activism at work. It can tend to turn away the most logical and reasonable well grounded people who want no part of it. The people who _need_ work to be political can go get hired for explicitly political organizations where that is the job.
Creating a distaste in people without like minds has been an intentional goal to cause exodus after exodus on various platforms, in companies and so on. If you let that get out of control, you can poison a culture almost unrecoverably. We can't let that happen to our critical tech companies for national security reasons.
Most people don't force politics into work as much as they have it forced upon them by, you know, living in a society. And the idea of "political activism" causing "distaste in people without like minds" is a misattribution, putting it mildly. But yeah, keep people quiet and heads down so the work can get done, regardless of what the work is or what it will be used for.
You have to remember that most companies _chose_ to setup DEI programs: it was a routine recommendation from lawyers because it gave them a string defense in lawsuits — the next time some manager abuses their position, they can cut that person loose and point to their various programs as evidence that whatever happened was limited to that manager and not company culture.
> Considering they rolled back DEI along with everyone else after Trump's second victory, it's difficult to view those previous "values" as anything other than cynical kissing-up to the previous holders of power.
The previous policies simply reflected the culture of employees and HR managers that had graduated from universities that openly practiced race-conscious admissions after Grutter v. Bollinger. The change in policy likely came not from the new administration, but the Supreme Court's SFFA decision in 2023 that reminded everyone the civil rights laws require race blindness.
It’s the cost of buying goodwill and lower regulatory burden from the administration in power at the time of implementation. DEI? Non DEI? Like an umbrella, just depends on the weather, its business as usual regardless.
I agree with your broader point, but DEI versus no DEI is a bad example. That's not an example of companies sucking up to the preferred policies of whatever administration is in power. Instead, they are responding to decisive legal decisions. There is a clear legal principle at issue: the civil rights laws are symmetric as to race. The Supreme Court held that in SFFA in 2023, and again in Ames in 2025 (which was a 9-0 decision). Most "DEI" programs create unacceptable legal exposure because they involve literature or practices as to white people that would be held up as evidence of racial discrimination in a Title VII lawsuit if the races were switched.
And it didn't even stop the antitrust suite so they threw in with Trump and then started sucking up to him. He's giving big tech everything they want so there is pretty much nothing he can do that will upset them.
Ive directly complained against the latte liberals screaming DEI.
Ive had them demand my pronouns. I really dont care, but saying that is absolutely not acceptable. Ill use your pronouns. I really do not care.
Ive been in meetings with 'land acknowledgements' with whatever former indians/native americans who were there. Its not like we're giving them the land back.
DEI and what it turned into was a big for-public-show that you knew the buzzwords and the antiwords. And if you didnt, or woukdnt play along, theyd ruin you.
The current MAGA MAHA meritocracy crap is also just the opposite, but the same games as DEI folks. They have their buzzwords and antiwords. Although, theyre a whole lot stupider and easier to manipulate and deal with.
They were not cynical kissing up to previous holders of power, they were desperate attempts to cover their asses against EEOC lawsuits. And they didn't end because of Trump's second victory, they ended because the Supreme Court defanged EEOC (and half the rest of the federal regulatory agencies).
The actual reason for the "corporate DEI" in tech was that since Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), EEOC could sue companies that had lower minority proportion than population norm for discrimination, and could could prove the discrimination in court using nothing but the racial makeup of the employees, and some policy at the company that could in theory have disparate impact. And under their standards, literally any policy has disparate impact.
This hit other sectors first, to which they responded by hiring more minorities. But tech had the problem that schools were consistently producing fewer minority engineering grads than the population proportion, and in a world where approximately every engineer got employed, some US tech companies would have to have lower minority representation than the population no matter what they did. And because the disparity between engineering grads and racial population proportion was so high, in fact most large companies would fail to meet the necessary minority proportions.
But EEOC would not instantly file suit against every offender, instead they would file ~40 such suits per year, targeting large companies that they considered particularly bad. And so companies that felt they might get hit soon started doing DEI programs, at first to attract more minority engineers (from other companies in the same sector, which would then fall under the limit, making it zero-sum), but then they realized that the EEOC didn't really sue the companies that were the loudest at touting their DEI credentials, and it all became extremely performative, no longer trying to attract minority talent but to be the loudest company talking about the subject. Iterate over that for a few decades and it got really weird.
It ended because Trump named 3 SC justices on his first term, and in a few important cases between 2023 and today, the new SC tore the whole thing down, and suing a company for disparate impact is now considered unconstitutional.
I always hate the James Damore discussion because it's like the least interesting part. You have a company dealing with internal political mayhem trying to find the least disruptive, not only internally but now externally because this shit has leaked. It's a workplace, and youre trying to keep people effective and working. And some googlers got too comfortable with what they were sharing on a work machine, not just to their coworkers, but tens of thousands of employees.
The support of war efforts is clearly a change in moral compass that is much more fascinating though.
100% agree. The James Damore flag was immediately taken up by major figures in transphobia (like Singal, Soh, etc) and pro-fascism campaigners (like Molyneux), both of which are political programs are absolutely incompatible with maintaining a non-hostile workplace environment for employees. (and not incidentally, both of which a premised on discredited bioessentialist pseudoscience)
I find it is a deeply cynical move, to be asked to place the James Damore "was it employer overreach-or-not?" episode in similar proportion to critiquing a company's actions regarding issues such as mass surveillance and/or assisting war efforts, especially when the accusations about those broader issues are tied to complicity in the 2020s resurgence in fascist politics. It is so cynical that I can't believe it isn't intentional.
> incompatible with maintaining a non-hostile workplace environment for employees
More commonly, this happens the other way around. For example, in Monica Helms' autobiography, he writes:
> Shortly after one of the training sessions had finished, I held back from leaving the training room and watched all the women make their way to the third-floor restroom. I had to pee too, so I went into the restroom I had become accustomed to using. The other
women made it immediately clear they didn't want me there. Some
gave me the evil eye while others rushed out when they saw me. I did my best to ignore them, stepped into a stall and did my thing. Then I went back to my desk to carry on with my work. Twenty minutes later, HR called me into their office.
> The new head of HR told me, "Some of the women have
complained that you went into the third-floor restroom after today's training session."
Showing no empathy whatsoever for the women he imposed his presence on, he then goes on to explain how the company caved to his demands to use the female restroom, and that women who complained were given short shrift.
Clearly, this approach creates a hostile workplace environment for female employees.
One of them I refer to is "race essentialism" [1] which led to the long-discredited pseudoscience known as scientific racism[2], and its political associated program of eugenics,
and the other is "gender essentialism"[3] which has also been rejected by mainstream scholars across fields from biology to medicine to sociology to gender studies, and which acts in culture as a similarly pseudoscientific popular rationale for organizing society in ways that harm women and gender minorities.
The study of the field of racism is absolutely fascinating in that very quickly, the simple, obvious "commonsense" theories like "race exists as a meaningful biological category" turn out to be quite false.
What sorts of scientific racism (or gender essentialism) have Jesse Signal and Deborah Soh propagated? To be clear, I'm not asking for a primer on scientific racism, I'm asking you to substantiate the allegations you made against specific individuals.
You ought to read my comment carefully. Singal (not Signal) and Soh are "major figures in transphobia", and Molyneux is a pro-fascism campaigner. The former two (Singal, Soh) are advocates of "gender essentialism", and the latter travels internationally campaigning for the "race essentialism" and policies based on that.
As you're aware of both of (Singal,Soh)'s first names already, is it a fair guess that you're already familiar with some of their transphobic work? Perhaps then, that is a good place to start. As just one example, Soh is actually so committed to gender essentialism that it's led her to advocate the approach that: your assigned male at birth teenager who tells you that they're trans and requests to transition is actually gay in my opinion so being affirming to them about that is homophobic ( from her article in reactionary online journal "Quillette").
Soh will of course try to dress that horrific construction from her article up in professional-sounding language, but our duty is in fact to address the thrust of her argument, not whether she attempts to frame it in polite language. You might also recognize Soh from her work in the atrocious Matt Walsh "documentary" that pretends to be about women but is entirely about invalidating trans people.
To make this more clear: Soh's need to provide an explanation for femininity in a person who is assigned male at birth while denying the validity of trans people is only necessary for a person operating from a bioessentialist lens. The need in Soh is so strong that it leads her to make totally unfounded and ridiculous claims in that article, and it also drove her promotion of the discredited (and retracted!) pseudoscientific 'Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria)' invented by Lisa Littman.
I'm not aware of Singal ever saying that all children who express identification outside their birth gender are actually just same-sex attracted (I'm less familiar with Soh's work). Rather, his point is that the guidance given to parents to identify signs of gender dysphoria is often rooted in gender essentialism. For instance, playing with the "wrong" toys for their birth gender is promoted as a sign of gender dysphoria [1].
Surely you'd agree that if a natal male says he is a boy and when asked why he replies "because I'm attracted to boys", then the responsible reply is "it's okay to be a gay boy", and not "yes, because you're attracted to boys you are a girl." It's certainly possible that a child will persist in expressing and opposite-sex gender even after exploring identity as a gay boy and will follow through with transition. But surely the responsible thing to do is to make sure that the child first understands that there's nothing wrong with being a boy attracted to other boys. First, eliminate the possibility that the boy is identifying as a girl out of a gender-essentialist belief that boys are only attracted to girls and he has to be a girl to attract boys. If after that, if the child still expresses a cross-sex gender identity then explore transitioning.
I don't think Singal has ever said that all - or even a majority - of children expressing a cross-sex gender identity are actually just same-sex attracted cis people. He only takes issue with legislation in some jurisdictions effectively prohibit medical professionals from exploring a gay male identity in this scenario, and effectively mandate social affirmation the moment a patients expressed a cross sex gender identity.
Even if you disagree with the above, surely at least you understand why I'm confused about the allegation that Singal is promoting gender essentialism. His concern is that gender essentialism is being misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria, and people aren't doing enough to accept boys wearing dresses, being attracted to other boys, and behaving in "feminine" ways, and being too quick to say "well, you're a girl". Even if you don't agree with his claims about misdiagnoses, it's abundantly clear he is against gender essentialism.
Nah, James Damore just did a stupid thing at work and wasn't talented enough for it to be overlooked. He deserved to be fired. Morals don't need to come into it.
They lost their moral compass a while ago, but it had nothing to do with Damore.
Google exists to make money and is happy to change their opinions to suit the current force in power.
But that “critique” of gender diversity efforts said that the lack of women in CS was due to some innate difference in women (rather than a social division that is neither innate nor universal across time or cultures) While also decrying the lack of affirmative action for conservatives.
It’s neither the tipping point for Google, nor is it a hill worth dying on
I think there's a lot more political will now than there was a decade ago for explicitly repealing the sections of American civil rights law that define what a "hostile workplace" is, in order to make sure that something like Damore's memo would not count. Certainly, this is something I think about when evaluating political candidates.
What are the major historical examples where protecting employees from a "hostile workplace" is important? Racism? Misogyny? Homophobia? Do protection from these things look expendable to you?
I'm sure either of us could quickly find a bunch of people who would like to one or several of those acceptable again, yet us finding that such people exist would not tell us a damned thing about whether dismantling those protections is a good idea. Or supposing it does, then one might even make the case that those people existing is an excellent reason for having such a law in the first place.
Sounds like you're responding to incorrect summaries? He was not intolerant of woman in the workplace. His memo was specifically in support of women in the workplace.
No, I read the memo. What I was not doing is taking him at his word that he "values diversity and inclusion", I was reading his actual words and the sexist dogwhistles. Stating acceptance does not absolve other intolerance.
We must also look at the effect of his memo, which was to alienate many, and which caused a backlash that led to his firing. The company did not make a big deal of it just to fire him, it was individuals who were personally impacted and offended by it who made it what it was.
"dog whistles" are, more often than not, a thinly veiled way of putting words in other people's mouthes.
Damore's thesis amounted to "maybe women are 20% of software developers not because they're being discriminated against, but because they're exercising their own agency and choosing other fields."
Given that about 20% of CS grads are women, it seems like a pretty reasonable stance.
In isolation, it's a very naive, oblivious, and incurious stance.
Taken alongside the rest of the content, it's a rejection of the idea that there is systemic bias, and much of his memo is dedicated to ways in which that bias can be propagated and solidified.
At best, the memo paints Damore as someone who is radically uninformed and parroting old and invalid talking points that others have given to him. At worst it implies that he knows what he's doing and is trying to dismantle processes and culture that are improving women's access to the workplace.
So merely contesting the notion that systemic bias is the main driver of the gender disparity in tech is grounds for instant termination? Well, that's rather troubling given that the empirical evidence on the bias in tech company hiring doesn't support the narrative of anti-female bias: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484
Not at all. A good faith discussion in the right forum is fine.
That's not what the memo was. It ignored the evidence we have that there is systemic bias, it relied on tired and debunked tropes, and has explicit goals about preserving and elevating the privilege that perpetuates that systemic bias. That done in front of a large company filled with people personally affected by it is just a terrible idea. I'm open to discussion about this, but from the right people (those affected, with the experience) in the right context. James Damore was neither.
But honestly, if you read the memo and think it sounds reasonable, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. These biases are deeply rooted and take decades of introspection to overcome. I've been on that journey for probably 15 years and I've still got blind spots.
The experiment I linked above sent monitored the callback rates of applicants sent out to Bay Area tech companies for technical roles, and saw higher callback rates for women. This is the sort of prototypical evidence we use as an example of systemic anti-Black bias where Black applicants are called back less frequently than white applicants.
Is Google, specifically, systemically biased against women? Cross-referencing the diversity reports they publish [1], with employment statistics [2] does not show an underrepresentation of women. Google has also taken controversial steps, such as tying executive performance reviews to the representation of "underrepresented groups" - that term has included women at every company I've worked at, but if that's not the case at Google please correct me. When Google conducted an investigation into whether women were underpaid, they discovered that the disparity leaned the other way [3].
Perhaps maybe some introspection is warranted on your part, and revisit the assumptions you have about gender bias at Google and in the tech industry in general.
And this is why I said that I'm not going to change your mind.
The gender bias is clear in individual experience and data, all it takes is talking to women (or people of colour, or whatever under represented group you want) to see it.
I think Google does pretty well on this, largely due to the diversity programs that Damore was calling to have abolished.
And what is that data? Again you've referenced data or evidence for anti-female bias, and yet again you neglect to share it.
Data could definitely change my mind: what percentage of applicants to software developer roles at Google are women, and what percentage of offers extended for those roles go to women? If the former is substantially smaller than the latter, that would definitely sway me.
Google did fire a lot of people when this happened on both sides, seems like they were just tired about the whole thing and wanted political fights out of the company. Damore since he started it, and anyone that got too upset about it and said things they shouldn't have was also fired, as were the people who got too upset about those that got upset.
> statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.
I think what is being lost is that despite Google having lost its morals at various points, and Don't Be Evil being burried, this man's resignation does signal yet another dark turning point in the future of the Google organization.
They are now openly partnering with war industries and the government to assist them in doing things like bombing a school full of girls, killing hundreds in an entirely indefensible war of aggression.* This is a very dark red line to cross and despite Googlers being wealthy and privilaged, it is nonetheless a significant protest that deserves to be heard on its own terms. Ideally, a protest would change policy at the company.
Google management: Stop cooperating with the immoral and illegally operating War Department!
* I don't have evidence Google directly participated in the Minab school bombing, but this is the side they are supporting.
So much bitterness in these comments, looking at the world in black and white. With 200,000 employees, google is a complex set of humans, where many will have different experiences. People doing really good work, and people doing the opposite.
well at least the TC and stock appreciation was worth it right?
sorry not being a jerk but many of these kinds of posts just come off as performative and attention seeking. you could have just quit, literally everyone knows how FAANG operates.
These are the most successful companies in the history of the world. What do you expect? DO you need a PhD to figure this out?
So the guy was Google's planted ~expert~ lobbyist for the European Commission and now he's rich enough to quit, and makes a blogpost about it because people are rightfully skeptical about his motives?
>Algorithms for ads and mass surveillance were always at the core of Google model.
You may not have been around back then, but we had half a decade of Google before that model, and it was quite nice, nice enough to get us to leave our other search providers--and to hand them the keys to our inboxes.
. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people.
So if our enemies had no qualms at all about doing this, wouldn't it make sense that we have weapons that can at least counter, and potentially fight back? Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland?
> "Don't be evil"
Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?
He has, and has had, a specific moral philosophy he follows. When he took the job the public (and once he started, internal) words and actions of the company fit within that philosophy (or closely enough). Now the company has changed and they don’t fit. Further, the obvious changes happened without any real notice or explanation.
It seems reasonable in that situation to leave. FWIW; I was in the same situation, and left.
Do you fault him for his personal moral code? He is not telling you how you should act.
I'm not a pacifist, but I wouldn't work in any place related to the US military for the simple reason that it is mostly used to wage wars of aggression these days, or provide materiel to other countries that do. Stop doing that and then we can seriously talk about defensive military tech. I left NVIDIA in part because it is too heavily involved in these things (and Palantir and Anduril specifically).
Regarding this specifically:
> Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland?
it again depends on what exactly said AI does. If it's used to surveil most people most of the time, for example, then that probably does reduce the odds of an ISIS-linked attack on US, but the surveillance itself would be a greater injury at that scale.
I have met pacifists who say all war is bad* and thus the Russia Ukraine war should immediately end, without any ideas on how to get that to happen except a few who imply Ukraine should roll over and be consumed.
Describe that scenario to me. What precisely is the language model going to do? To defeat a _terrorist_ organization? I feel like this is way to asymmetric of a philosophy to actually work, but, I'm curious to know what your imagination holds on this one.
> Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?
The government _is_ impotent in protecting you. If they weren't we wouldn't need courts. Or a constitution. Or the revolution which started it.
Finally, there is an argument to be made, that our government, and it's imperious ways, were the primary force which led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Perhaps if we weren't telling lies about yellow cake and mobile chemical labs while indiscriminately bombing innocent civilians we wouldn't be facing such a ridiculous world security posture.
If you actually read the article you'd know that the Googles government isn't friendly with the author's government, which makes your nitpicking nonsensical.
>Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?
When they rename "Department of Defense" to "Department of War", there can be no mistake about the intention of the government. They aren't "protecting" us, they are actively starting unnecessary wars, because cruelty has always been the point for them.
Did you just realize this now? The name "Department of Defense" has always been a euphemism. The last time we were in a defensive war was World War II--ironically, when the DoD was still called the "Department of War."
It’s not “whataboutism” because it’s relating to the same event, not a different event. In context of the facts, it seems like your complaint is that the name is being changed to accurately reflect what the DOD was already doing.
I don't know, it seems like being a pacifist is harder, since it exposes you to violence to which you cannot retaliate while alienating you from your peers with less stringent moral opinions. Doesn't seem like it really makes anything easier. You don't have to look hard to find that history is replete with pacifists who paid social and legal penalties for their moral stance.
He also said that "defense" was "different", so he's not that principled.
I assume if he actually felt threatened personally he wouldn't have any issues with developing weapons (through full-disk encryption or unbreakable DRM or locking people out of their devices or whatever).
Not that I care in particular
But claiming that google lost it's "moral compass" just now is a claim only rich people can make because they retire, not quit.
Google is literally the largest, most organized, tracking and profiling company in the world. Which they tend to grow even larger with the rise of LLMs.
Turning a blind eye of that for the opportunity or whatever, and than claim that _just now_ they lost their moral compass, is being a hypocrite.
Right. I have respect for Rene, but going by the "HN quitting manifestos" like this, Google has lost its moral compass at least 50 times at various points in the last 20 years.
The company is constantly changing, but also hasn't changed all that much. It always talked the talk and was eager to tell others how to behave, but was almost never willing to give up any real revenue to do the right thing. The usual justification was that if Google doesn't do it, someone else will (and that someone else is obviously not as moral as Googlers are).
If you're old enough, you might remember that they vocally opposed privacy-violating, disruptive display ads. That was their whole schtick. But that was before they realized there's a lot of money to be made by acquiring Doubleclick.
At this point I assume anyone with more than five years at Google is morally bankrupt to at least some degree. I don't want to paint them as bad people or anything but can't find better words for it - it's so obvious that if you stick around, you are accepting it and likely contributing to some degree. People I still talk to are generally honest about accepting it. I wonder if they will all reneg with this sort of quitting post when the time comes.
I think you're coming from a privileged position - finding a job is extremely hard*, and if someone stayed somewhere that paid well then it's a bit extreme to say they're "bankrupt" morally. Alternatives are finance, ad tech, big consulting, etc. Are YOU working for a non profit?
* For us, maybe not for you.
I when they thought it was unethical to disguise an ad as search result.
Agreed, the Google the author described arriving at probably didn't exist in 2017 like stated. It probably was dead by then. But since the author agreed with the politics at the time, they ignored this. Now that things continued to degrade and political winds changed and they have to deal with the negative consequences of some of those decisions, they are taking their ball and going home.
Its really hard to take such articles seriously. Its borderline gaslighting and says a lot more about the author than Google or US politics. In fact, even though I have no idea who this person is, I don't have a good opinion of them after reading this. And that ironically was the exact opposite of the intended effect of writing this for the author.
> Now that things continued to degrade and political winds changed
It is not hypocrisy at all to change opinion on the company as the company politics changes. That is actually "being consistent".
Being ok with some things and being against other things is perfectly fine and valid.
Welcome to Silicon Valley. We fuck up the environment, we tear apart the fabric of democracy to line shareholders' pockets, and we knowingly build the modern tools of fascist oppression. But look at us! We elected a progressive Democrat!
Why do you have respect for Rene?
He doesn't. People start off with that when they're scared of voicing their actual opinion and it softens whatever they have to say a touch.
I do. I'm familiar with his research from the pre-Google era, and that's that.
Or it could be that they want to give people they don't know the benefit of the doubt. I don't really consider it a sign of good character to not do this and the vast majority of people would too. That you didn't even consider it...
Like a compliment sandwich or something.
I tend to agree. My first reaction to this post was to check the date, because I would have assumed this had been published around 2014.
Google's moral compass was gone long before this man even joined. That doesn't make them particularly evil, but they have joined the ranks of ordinary, publicly traded corporations.
I know Google's track record prior to the DOW contact is far from perfect, but is it really so hard to understand why it crossed a line for a lot of people? Why are we acting like ad tracking/targeting and developing autonomous lethal weapons are morally comparable?
Because HN posters constantly have their outrage meter pegged at 11, and there’s no room for nuance, good faith, benefit of the doubt, or different perspectives, anywhere. Big corporations and wealthy people are all the worst of the worst, nothing less than pure evil, as bad as Hitler or Stalin.
I mean, this guy is probably not a bleeding heart, but he had a certain line and wouldn't cross it. I'm not sure the potshots are really warranted. We all realize they were not bleeding heart do-gooders, but saying you're OK with that but not with certain uses of AI in warfare doesn't strike me as incoherent.
In other words:
All of my stock has finally vested, and I am independently wealthy enough to signal that I'm quitting purely based on my morals, since there's no way anyone could have known Google wasn't some ethical bastion of hope in 2017.
there are plenty of people who are financially independent but who don't choose to follow their moral compass.
I think the implication is that their moral compass was disregarded or non-existent until they gained their independence. Therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
People who don't ever consider or speak of morals or ethics are beside the point.
In the world of Big Tech, it seems a lot of moral compasses coincidentally start working after the people holding them have cashed out.
Being financially independent is the moral compass of the financially independent.
"being financially independent" is a state and a "moral compass" is a function or tool. Two different concepts like red and tomato or yesterday and cold.
A compass needs to point somewhere and financial independence is where it points for those people.
> Being financially independent is the moral compass of the financially independent.
I mean, I think you meant it somewhat derisively (if not, apologies), but it's absolutely true. I work for two reasons: it gives me a higher quality of living and it anchors my life by creating structure.
I could choose to not work and be very frugal and probably be ok. But I might have to re-enter the job market later in life due to rising costs after my skills have atrophied (been there, it's horrible; no one will consider you). Or I can make certain that when the day comes that I'm ready to be done, it's at a time when making it to death without financial hardship has a much higher probability. I can also afford to enjoy nice things rather than pinching pennies.
I also know that I have a tendency to spin out if I have too much free time and not enough going with routine and a sense of contributing. Combined with the above, this means I am free to work where I want to work, doing the absolute easiest thing I can find that I still consider rewarding. I don't have to chase money or promotions (I want as little responsibility as possible).
I can walk away tomorrow if my org does something I consider unethical. I can hold out for a position that meets the above criteria rather than taking the first job I see because of desperation. When my previous employer had layoffs, I was able to remain comfortable for six months while only applying to jobs I genuinely wanted.
There's no amount of money that a Meta, Google, OpenAI, etc could offer me because even though it'd be nice to own a house in the Bay Area, I'm satisfied renting until death and don't need more than the very nice spacious home I've already got. I hit the jackpot and I'm grateful every day.
Back in 2017, I had this theory that Google was run from the Vatican and the Pope himself was the CEO.
Maybe he should donate every cent he got through Google and its stock to prove he's serious?
The virtue signal is definitely true.
However its the statement that "Google lost its moral compass" has never really been true.
Its pretty clear at this point that companies solely respond to economic tides, which are governed by what people truly want. And Id argue that people in general have lost their moral compass (in the sense of how they vote, in politics and with their wallet, not what they say)
Yeah, it's wild to be writing a post like this in June 2026. Even if he thought Google was somehow still salvageable, how did he justify staying there after Google immediately bent the knee to Trump with the $1 million bribe a year and a half ago?
You really haven't ever encountered someone who believed in anything, have you?
I mean, it is quite obvious for years that Google is now classical immoral tech corporation, which now means current administration servant. They changed their code of conduct in 2018 along with they “Don’t be evil” to “Do the right thing” because world is not "black and white". This obvious shift into moral ambiguity with then changed code of conduct should signal the shift in policy. Eight years ago. Not even mentioning their actions.
This is not about "believing in anything" other than a stable job and money. I respect the author that he felt this moral tradeoff was enough.
I'm afraid, we cannot expect anything else from every publicly owned company, because sadly, it's in human nature to be selfish if you are not the one who suffers from your actions.
https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of...
"And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!"
Sorry this is one of those things that bugs me - but "don't be evil" was never removed from their code of conduct. It's placement was moved though from the start to the end, and you could argue whether it's less important because of that if you want.. but it is still there.
I think it can at least be said they are amoral not immoral. It’s a very low bar, but still
Fair. It is still by far not META.
I actually did this. And that's why I feel confident calling out people like the guy in the article who enjoyed the upside and then do this performative cringe.
I quit my job working for oil and gas companies, and taught myself how to code and then worked at a company that actually made non-asshole software that went on to IPO so things worked out.
I didn't choose to help oil and gas companies, the company I worked for had them as customers so the work I did helped oil and gas. I chose to give up the money and do something else.
So I don't give a fuck about downvotes. I actually lived it, and I don't give a fuck anymore either to call people out.
Personally, I don't get why people blindly reject any collaboration with the military. I understand that they are pacifists, but I still don't get it. When I look at history, I see so many tragedies caused by being weak. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were able to invade Poland, for instance, and the Katyn massacre is a national scar. And who wouldn't want to defeat invaders like Genghis Khan? Have you ever heard of the Yangzhou massacre or the Three Massacres of Jiading? Why would we let civilization succumb to barbarism?
Don't get me wrong. I hate war. And never-ending wars like the Iraq War anger me to no end (and for that matter, I think G.W. Bush and his cabinet were truly evil). Of course, the danger is real; a military built for defense can easily become an instrument of tyranny or empire if left unchecked. That is why we must maintain rigorous civilian oversight and strict checks and balances over its power. But that does not mean the military, by default, is always evil, right?
It's because Americans and many Europeans under the shield of the U.S. military and have never in their lives felt a moment of fear about external threats.[1] They never have to meaningfully confront the central fact of their existence: that they enjoy a vastly disproportionate share of the world's bounty in a way that would be impossible without overwhelming military power. I suspect people living in say Ukraine don't talk like this.
[1] As I get older, I'm more sympathetic to Colonel Jessup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk.
In EU countries where war with Russia was seen as possible, for example, here in Sweden that is not the case.
The military preparations this fear leads to take a very special form though: investment in actual defence, commitment to stay behind and fight in case on an invasion, that sort of thing.
Obviously working on defence technology is part of this, but it also shapes the direction of the defence technology you work on. Sweden's forces have looked rather different from forces that intend to conduct offensive wars, especially historically. Tanks specifically designed for conducting ambushes are one example. Artillery emplacements designed to sink invasion fleets and to resist direct nuclear attack are another.
The Colonel Jessup character was guarding a fence in Cuba. Seriously. Cuba. Imagine hearing that sanctimonious speech about "the manner in which I defend you" and then you find out it's a fence in Cuba.
There hasn't been an existential threat to the United States since the Civil War, and that one was self-inflicted. Obviously we need to maintain a military but 99% of what the current military does is either for economic goals or hollow national pride.
Cuba is less than 95 miles from Florida and was aligned with a hostile nuclear superpower. The possibility of using Cuba as a base of operations for an attack on U.S. soil is the closest the U.S. has ever come to a significant foreign threat.
And guantanamo bay is on the south side of Cuba, not even between Cuba and the US. There has never been fighting there over 100 years. These days it's most famous as a convenient legal location to do torture.
Aaron Sorkin unintentionally created some phenomenal performance art with the closing of that movie and various educated people seeing Jack Nicholson's character as some sort of hard defender of freedom.
> And guantanamo bay is on the south side of Cuba, not even between Cuba and the US.
Why do you think that’s relevant to the point?
It's relevant to the macho point of Jack Nicholson talking a bunch of shit about how he defends us. The Guantanamo base is irrelevant except, as previously noted, a convenient location to do torture.
Regarding the larger relationship.. bro, it's not the 1960s. Nobody is even trying to put nukes in Cuba and we could have easily established normal relations at any point in the last 50 years. The only reason that they are "enemies" is because we can't let go of a grudge going on 75 years that is completely irrelevant in today's world.
Isn't every nuclear bomb an existential threat to all human life? How can one say there are no existential threats while countries people consider "The Enemy" have enough nukes to kill all human life multiple times? Also global warming is an existential threat. It's really telling how little people care about the world's problems not seeing their very own existence endangered.
In the case of Global Warming its happening to slowly for most people to perceive it as threatening. Even though it massively is.
For Nukes thats just a given nowadays, humans have a remarkable ability to adapt to constant threats. Not in the sense of being able to do something against it but to know it exists and not be terrified every single day. So many things can threaten human life that exist around us and yet we do not get scared after some time anymore atleast not constantly. Look at people living in Australia the entire ecosystem is basically a giant threat to anyone living there. Look at people living in earth prone regions of the world. People adapt and keep on living their lives. This is a fundamental human skill.
>People adapt and keep on living their lives.
True! This is precisely what really annoys me about humans, because it makes humans not care about many things, and it's a skill I struggle with, which causes constant anger and helplessness on my side of things. But I guess it's what allows people to have hope and being whimsical, happy and whatnot.
All true, I meant threats in conventional military terms which our military and public rhetoric are all centered around.
Yea I didn't consider the public rhetoric, good catch!
The cold war and kids practicing sheltering under their desks never happened?
As in 2026 US army is not used for defense. It is used for offense and proudly so.
It wasn’t used primarily for defense in 1947 when it was renamed “department of defense.”
In this specific instance, this is the military of a country different from the one of the author. A country that is increasingly hostile towards its allies and does weird shit on the international stage that is difficult to justify.
Presumably they reject it because they see the military used offensively?
The author may agree with you. They write:
> strictly defensive action is somewhat different
> When I look at history, I see so many tragedies caused by being weak. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were able to invade Poland, for instance, and the Katyn massacre is a national scar. And who wouldn't want to defeat invaders like Genghis Khan? Have you ever heard of the Yangzhou massacre or the Three Massacres of Jiading? Why would we let civilization succumb to barbarism?
Well, what if people had refused to lend their talents to Hitler or Genghis Khan?
What if you're on the receiving end and don't get a choice?
Yes, that was already the first scenario presented. I was presenting a different one to help you understand how someone could reach the opposite conclusion.
I have thought about this a lot, and concluded that the peace we have today largely stems from all major powers having nuclear weapons, and leadership in each understanding that avoiding nuclear war is the utmost priority. All foreign policy choices are aligned to prevent military confrontation and avoid nuclear war. Thus there is an overemphasis to resolve disputes through diplomacy. But the plebeians do not understand this, they assume the peace today backed by nuclear weapons is genuine and permanent, they don't consider the nuclear weapons hidden underground, and advocate for policies like pacifism that do not reflect reality.
This quote sums up the current situation:
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.
Shocking how a quote from some 2016 novel now rolls around the Internet like it's fucking Aristotle
"With great power comes great responsibility" - Spider-Man
It sounds like something Steve Bannon realized in the shower before heading to the Oval Office.
Economic interdependence is also a big factor. If you depend on someone selling you things or buying them from you, you have a lot more to lose by invading them.
That's the Capitalist peace theory, proposed in 1795 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace_theory
It has some truth to it, but it doesn't survive looking at European history. In 1913 Germany and Britain were each other's largest trading partners, but a year later they ended up fighting each other in WWI. They fought again in WWII. Nuclear deterrence is a better explanation of post-WWII peace.
Yep. People want to believe this, because it means the world will generally become more peaceful as it becomes more integrated. But the numbers just don't hold up -- the closest trading partners are just as willing to go to war as anyone else.
This is an academic point. The US represents one third of the world's military spending because it uses force to further the economic interests of the elite. To work in a "defense" supplier is to support this.
I can't speak for anyone else, but as a Christian, it's really quite simple: any death that you help cause is a black mark on your soul. Maybe you can repent for it, someday. But it's not something that will just be let go when the day of reckoning comes.
Incidentally, I'd feel the same way about killing someone in self-defense.
As someone from a Catholic country I always find hard how we mix that peaceful message with was was done in destruction to this day in the name of spreading faith since the ruling religions changed a few centuries ago.
I thought accepting and believing in Jesus as Lord was all you needed to enter heaven?
John 6:40 (KJV) 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Do you honestly think you're raising a novel point and not just being trite? If so, try reading Luther's Concerning Christian Liberty, where he dispenses with this argument. Or if you want a short version of what he says, if you just claim to "believe in" God but that doesn't affect your behavior in any way, then you don't really believe.
I'm certain I could not raise a novel theological perspective on Chrstianity even if I devoted my entire life to it. But from what I can tell, killing is not a black stain that precludes you from salvation. God is good, and He is forgiving.
OK, but part of repenting for something is genuine contrition, which is not really incompatible with knowing it's wrong but doing it anyway since you read that you can be forgiven.
You have to seek forgiveness and truly understand the nature of your transgression against your fellow man, not be like "welp, collateral damage is just part of the job."
Sure, I'd say that's a requisite for believing in Christ. But like I said, that belief can be sparked after what seems like any number of transgressions.
If you believe something, that will obviously have consequences on your actions, so there's obviously no inconsistency between the verse you quote and what he said.
Sure there is. They're a Christian, and think any action that causes death directly or indirectly condemns you to hell, and it's not given that you can repent. But scripture says belief in Christ will save your immortal soul, and that God is forgiving and merciful. That is not consistent with OPs views, who puts salvation as a "maybe" if you've caused death. If you find a genuine faith in Christ after the fact, you will be saved.
But scripture also says that many people will believe that they are holy and will be saved, and won't be, and this is one of Jesus's parables.
So it's far from clear. People who believe will have works, this is also something with scriptural support. So if you are doing harm, such as by killing people, you probably don't.
What if avoiding causing a death instead results in thousands of deaths? Do you give yourself a moral high five and stick your head in the sand?
That is not my call to make.
In a life-or-death situation, maybe a Christian could make the decision to take another life, then spend the rest of their life burdened by the guilt and sorrow of breaking the unambiguous 6th Commandment. There is room for repentance in this context.
That is *far* from the reality of the "defense" industry, however. Making widgets so that some dude at a computer terminal has an easier time drone-striking buildings full of kids halfway across the world is, essentially, evil.
Some nominal Christians like Hitler and Putin had odd ideas on that stuff. I'll give you Christ was pretty peaceful.
Indeed, I hear you 100%. It may be painful to watch "your" military engage in wars that are not righteous, from one's perspective. Are there even "righteous" conflicts these days? But short of demand to abolish all state military, what is appropriate way to express one's indignation? Hopefully all can agree that such demand would be insane; but why, then, those "pacifist" performances, which effectively are calls to deprive military of the best weapons, people, thoughts, strategies, are not considered insane?
Agree or disagree with particular foreign policy or military action, why do people forget that the bulk of military is staffed with their fellow citizens? Many of whom aren't terribly privileged to enjoy ample alternative choices to elevate themselves socially or financially. It is exactly this lot who benefits the most from DEI policies, cherished by "pacifists", is it not? It is them who are the first and most massive direct casualties, caused by not having access to the best, superior materiel, doctrine and training on and beyond the battlefield.
I'll be the first to point that military and paramilitary forces attract many with unchecked lust for violence. That "pride", "honor" and "patriotism" are often terribly misused, to uphold goals of those with impure, malicious ambitions. Who, I grant it, also disproportionately represented in the command echelons of military and beyond. But if we are honest, that scum won't be shaken or taught a lesson by SotA technology being withheld from their use or corporation refusing cooperation. It is their subordinates, who, maybe naively, subscribe to "ideal", unquoted interpretation of Pride, Honor and Patriotism, will bear the brunt of being crippled (by the consequences of the withholding and refusal) on the battlefield, and pay with their lives. Don't their lives matter?
>“Don’t Be Evil” wasn’t just a slogan (...) —it was a north star for teams making hard calls
I've developed an involuntary, muscle-level reflex that forces me to close the tab immediately when I read these "not just X -- it was Y" LLMisms.
I realize the author might be human and am sorry if that's the case, but I can't help it.
Same for me. It is the spectral signal of LLM writing. I'm a writer and last week I re-read one of my own books, that was written a few years before LLMs appeared. And I saw I used the "It's not X; it's Y" construction and I cringed, and now I have a moral dilemma: it feels so painful LLM robot speak that I want to rewrite that sentence for the next edition. But on the other hand, I want to keep it in because it is what I wrote and it was me talking not an LLM. Oh the moral dilemmas one must face!!!
What’s painful is that you’re thinking of letting robots suppress your authentic voice. Also, they got that way by copying humans, and if you continue to cede to them everything they copy, you’ll have no place left to be.
There used to be (is...?) an xkcd IRC chatroom where you were only allowed to post things that had never been said before. Violations resulted in an n-minute ban, increasing with each violation.
Maybe this is the future of all (interesting/worthwhile) human writing. Perpetually stay one step ahead of the machines.
Surely there are times when using that pattern is a great way to communicate the point to be made. The problem is LLMs over-use it and apply it in lots of cases when it's not appropriate.
My low-confidence theory is that it's an artifact of making the LLMs better at coding.
My two cents: think carefully if that pattern is a really great way to say what you want to say in your book. If it is, leave it, if you could say it better, change it.
How LLMs write and how people feel about them is evolving and the current dynamic will pass...
Chatbots can be prompted to write into all kinds of styles, this is just their default "help me with the homework" presentation. It doesn't make sense to drop some construct where it is appropriate just because bots overuse it.
So it was you! /s
The author might be human, but used an LLM to help them draft the letter. Something I do sometimes is brain dump into an LLM and have it help me organize it, and then I iteratively refine what I want to say.
20 some odd years ago I read zen in the art of motorcycle maintenance, and it made the point that writing is hard when trying to decide what to say and how to say it at the same time. Just stuck with me. Brain dumping into an LLM is one way to get some momentum.
That said, the negation parallel pattern LLMs overuse drives me nuts and I'm always having to manually edit those out. I can't help but wonder if there is an advantage to thinking like that that helps with coding. E.g. defensive negation in coding probably improves code quality, but it dilutes good writing when over used.
Brain dumping to a blank page and organizing your own thoughts is still an option.
That example flowed well and didn't stand out to me.
But what happens when you no longer feel that you have a decent chance of being able to determine that something might have been created with LLM assistance? Do you not mind because you can't tell anyway, or do you refuse to read anything at all for fear of potentially consuming some LLM assisted work?
I'm fine with it as long as it's not full of the usual signals, because that's just bad writing that I don't enjoy.
I had exactly the same thought yesterday. For now the "its not Y, its X" idiom is a strong LLM marker. It should be fairly simple for the brain trust at the labs to get rid of it, and I'm sure they eventually will when prose writers becomes a relevant enough customer base.
It already is very hard to identify AI text, and we probably consume a lot of it unbeknownst to ourselves. Its like microplastics now -- you can find it everywhere (or so the propaganda goes).
I don't have a solution for when they fix that stupid idiom. I'm already reading less current things in general because of this, and might just do more of that. Even if its impossible to distinguish, I think people will pro-actively mark their stuff as LLM-free. There isn't a tech to support/prove that rn, but there might be in the future.
I love this dichotomy.
"Look what I did with Claude, LLMs are going to change our world!"
"Lame author, used an LLM to write a blog post."
Google removed "Don't be evil" from its Code of Conduct in May 2018. Shocking that it took 8 years for the author to make their ethical stand -- during which time Google stock went up 600%...
No it didn't, it's still in the employee handbook. As the saying goes, a lie will go around the world before the truth can put its pants on.
What changed was Google's motto, and it changed from "don't be evil" to "do the right thing". The given reason is that the prior motto also included inaction.
It was still there when I started in the 2020s
Also comparing something to northstar is also the tell tell sign
As someone who worked at Google, it is absolutely ridiculous to claim Google only lost its moral compass in this decade, let alone suggest it HAD its moral compass in 2017 when the guy was wired.
Complete joke, do some introspection.
I don't understand the negativity here.
He is a top expert on a security topic. Running Android platform security gives him an opportunity to have incredible positive impact for many people---which he did for a decade.
People weigh trade-offs.
At the beginning, he may have had high ambitions to deploy interesting, research-forward ideas to Android; at this point, he has accomplished a lot of that. Maybe now, he is considering other factors.
Guessing that people are only money-driven or have made some decision because of threshold personal wealth is awful, especially if you do not know them.
Almost all academics I know (I am one also) are driven by personal curiosity, intellectual ambitions, a need to identify and solve problems, and a strong desire for positive contribution. I know Rene and believe this to be true of him.
The conclusion is what people are having issue with.
If the guy made some money for his work, good on him.
I’m not in the minority anymore it seems. The general attitude in this thread, “negative” though it may be, represents a far more grounded and blunt truth of the matter.
I’d just like to add, as always: this person should give back all the money Google paid them. Of course, that has not once happened in the history of these pious pieces, and so the meme endures.
I see everyone coming up with an arbitrary date of when Google lost their moral compass that aligns with their own moral compass. In that vein, I feel like when Brin and Page released a paper stating how PageRank could never be beneficial to a consumer with ads and then launched an ad company powered by page rank is when Google became evil.
I heard someone say recently that writing such an essay is a rite of passage when leaving google.
At first I thought they were exaggerating; now I think it truly is.
> Makes bank for 9 years > Quits > Takes the moral high ground on the way out despite highly profiting from all the things he's decrying
Pretty nice life if you ask me.
Google's whole business is built on top management abandoning its moral compass. Sergey Brin and Larry Page wrote that "advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers". Then they got into advertising anyway.
It's great to follow your own moral compass, whatever the cost.
Much harder than taking the money and blindly following management decisions.
Its easier once he vested his director level stock compensation since 2017.
Right, because I'm sure that's not what he's been doing this entire time. Everyone knows Google has been a shining beacon of goodwill since 2017.
> Director of Android Platform Security
Is this the person I have to complain about for the removal of fulldisk encryption in Android 13?
Looks like he updated his "About me" section
> At the moment, my main focus is [...] fighting against (governmental or corporate) mass surveillance
While he always had "Ethics in Computer Science” as an interest, I wonder what blinds people into accepting offers at Google -- the advertising company. I want to take his words as sincere, but Google has been privacy violating for longer than his tenure with android. Money and prestige is a hell of a drug I suppose. He could very well work for grapheneos but no money or immediate persteige there (sadly).
To me, Google switched the "Evil bit" around the time of the Dragonfly debacle (2018)
If OP is only seeing the problems now, they must have been selectively blind.
I mean, I get it. I have a family, financial obligations, etc. Certainly not shaming anyone for fulfilling those obligations working for a successful company. But don't put yourself up on a pedestal and cloak yourself in righteousness behind a veil of strong morals
"I am also a European academic. That means the current US government has become hostile to me"
Such a bizarre claim. EU academics seem under mass psychosis lately.
While EU is actively trying to erode encryption and privacy of all digital communications.
US government is openly hostile to Europe. The Greenland crisis was only few months ago. Before and after that, it was just a stream of insults and attacks.
To be fair, US government was OK with Orban and tried to help him stay in power. It is OK with authoritarian far right movements and is trying to help them too. But, if you are pro-democracy European, US is a hostile country trying to destroy your democracy.
Google management never had a moral compass. They just pretended they did until it was no longer convenient.
"Perfect is the enemy of good"
They are probably more moral than the average large US corporation.
There's good and there's a bunch of immoral technology oligarchs. Don't wash over reality.
I've used Google for twenty odd years and not had problems. I get a lot of value from search, gmail and the like. I'm not sure working the the US govt/defense is that evil.
If the founders had no moral compass it is rather naive to believe that management or the company as a whole would have one
I’ve known enough googlers to know there’s problems in that department. The worst being a friend was married to an SRE and he was fucking nuts. As in disturbingly Ayn Rand and eugenics.
Do people forget Eric Schmidt ran this company for how long?
Palpatine himself
The resemblance is uncanny.
Companies do not have moralities. They have revenue targets.
Any statement to the idea of a moral compass is just a form of marketing when the politics of the day align with it.
The best we can to is have independent moralities, while balancing that with the need to eat.
The majority of carbon offsetting efforts are called non-additional assets. A forest that was never going to be cut down or an unusable field in the middle of some rural area sells credits to companies to "offset" their carbon emissions. This doesn't actually create any net benefit to the environment. The industry also experiences fraud with double counting the same assets as some vendors will sell the same offset credits to multiple corporations.
I want to see more of "I'm rejecting this offer to work for Google bc my moral compass" not from folks who are paid out and ready for the next thing already.
its funny how long some people wait to decide the company they work for has lost their moral compass. "dont be evil" is already 8 years dead at this point.
I mean, I get it. I have a family, financial obligations, etc. Certainly not shaming anyone for fulfilling those obligations working for a successful company. But don't put yourself up on a pedestal and cloak yourself in righteousness behind a veil of strong morals.
I refused an interview from google in 2010ish, because it was already dubious with all the tracking and advertising they were doing, as well as the rising censorship.
So if you decided to go in 2017 with all that happened since, your moral compass was already broken with google's. Snowden already revealed what all that data was used for with program like PRISM. You already seen the total lack of interest in preventing scams in their ads as long as it brings money. You've seen the antitrust fines. The tax avoidance schemes. The election influence concerns over youtube content.
What I read is "I know have made enough money from Google immorality, I can virtue signal by taking an early retirement and pretend I'm a great person".
This take I can get behind. Google's leadership has been total garbage for at least 15 years. My experience as an employee of one of Google's closest business partners was that it started going south in 2008-ish and was certifiable by 2010.
These people who act like it's all suddenly gone down hill weren't there or weren't paying attention. If someone believes Goog's only turned to shit since about 2017, they were mislead, probably by the paychecks that kept them from looking too closely.
would you allow that it was bad enough to be fairly labeled garbage in 2011, yet could you still concede it has degraded significantly further since then? Or are you arguing that not only was it bad in 2011, but you are contending it hasn't (also) become worse?
The PRISM stuff about google was mostly BS. The only thing was the non-encrypted traffic on “dark” fiber between data centers. And some may have been a reference to systems to comply with court orders via the DOJ which everyone of any scale does (eg a “wiretap” on a Gmail account).
The military work came out in 2018
Instead of downvoting try responding. Do you not believe me? Do you think the law enforcement access was bad?
I do find it amusing when I see these LinkedIn fodder posts saying “I left [Meta/Google/OtherGiantCorp] because the company I joined 10 years ago doesn’t hold the same values anymore” as if these companies weren’t already fucked up evil pieces of shit many years before you joined. People are always trying to justify that they aren’t working for something purely evil. I guess you have to try to feel like that giant pile of cash on offer isn’t dirty money and you need validation from others to sleep at night
Google will want him terminated immediately and will probably make him some settlement (combined with a threat) to keep his mouth shut, going forward. Meanwhile, the media will be clamoring for interviews and more sound bites.
He’s from the EU. I think that Google can’t terminate him immediately.
Didn't he say he moved to Mountain View? Surely California employment law applies, not any EU laws?
Unless they send in their fully automated war drones.
Virtue signal noted
" Don't be evil"
The slogans are on the walls because they are not in our hearts.
Google has not changed its moral compass in 20 years. You just didn't want to admit it
Is he a canary in the coal mine, announcing things that are coming?
Not at all. He made his money, so now he can act all morally superior even though we've all known Google to be a menace since long before he started there in 2017. This article is downright ridiculous.
Google's entire "do no evil" bring your own identity to the job and all of that was pure marketing to hire better engineering talent.
Instead of monetising software sales, they monetised access to Free software performing an end run around the GPL by distributing access to it over the internet allowing them to make the public good proprietary google property. They threw out some crumbs at best.
Remember the un-publicised puzzles to paradoxically get media attention, hiring highschool kids with a demo that made the news because it made the news and all the rest of the BS. I guess it worked. Now they're big and bad and the Free software optimism is largely dead so they don't have to bother and now make killbots for the Pentagon.
Where else you gonna work? Go test the market, nerd.
[flagged]
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That was a crazy period when Google first fired him, then fired people criticising him, and then fired people criticising the people that just got fired.
But let's be honest, the guy was kind of unhinged. I would not have fired him, but neither would I have kept him in my team.
I agree, internally, looking at a fuller picture of his activity, he was off. Constantly bringing the subject up out of context, starting fights, etc. but they should have just warned him.
I'm sure he's just overjoyed to be tried without representation or evidence in the court of public opinion, a big step up from being punished with no process at all.
> but neither would I have kept him in my team
Let’s be honest, though. That’s firing from your team.
He wasn't unhinged, he somewhat clumsily posted evolutionary biology literature fragments on a channel where it would offend parts of the readers.
In response to a "let a thousand flowers bloom and speak your mind" request from Google management snakes. The problem is that some tech people take these requests seriously.
Google of course has identified itself as Trump sycophants and hypocrites by now. Maybe they should invite Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad and Elon Musk to give keynote speeches.
No he was kind of unhinged. That wasn't the first weird thing he did. Should've been fired.
What other things did he do to make you believe he was “kind of unhinged”? I know about the memo thing, but I think it was covered in an inflammatory way because the press loves to play up a controversy. What else besides the memo incident did he do that merits his firing?
Damore had been aggressively arguing about this stuff internally for some time in advance of his doc. The doc was consistent with a pattern of "makes a huge stink of things in every training and refuses to back down."
Okay, here's what I still don't understand. Were the things he was “making a huge stink about in every training” true or false? Reports at the time claimed that he was ”perpetuating harmful stereotypes,” but other reporting claimed that he was pointing out facts that inconveniently challenged the cultural orthodoxy and then wrote the doc to clarify his feedback, and so he became a target for internal activists. Are you aware of any specifics that would allow a reasonable person to lean one way or another as to the reality?
That is hard for outsiders to know. Google however seems to foster cancel mobs.
Python core people like Thomas Wouters and Gregory P. Smith, since fired from Google, canceled and libeled people like Tim Peters. All that matters is having a mob on your side and preventing the other side from responding.
By all means, explain what else he did. I've seen this claim made repeatedly on hacker news, but conspicuously noone seems willing to o substantiate those claims.
In my experience, Big Tech's billboard to "bring your best self" was just to get super eager people with great skills into their ranks to help accelerate business. Once you're on the inside, it's quite clear that's a farce and in fact, you should keep your mouth shut and your head down.
Alas.
Had a coworker at a bank that was trying to emulate Tech (Capital One - all in on AWS and PIPs) who bought into it. Ended up PIPed and then is doing a PhD in a completely unrelated field.
We had a mental health slack channel, and a racial politics one that rehashed Israel/Palestine daily.
>and a racial politics one
We had one of those. Not slack, self hosted internal stuff. Some "senior by tenure but not title" people decided the only thing that could come of it was people running their mouths to everyone's detriment and start trolling it until nobody took it seriously and then it was quietly "collateral damage" in a migration that was also arranged.
HR ended up nuking that channel in 2023.
I think they were afraid of touching what had started as an anti racism channel until the vibes had shifted a bit.
There were both Palestinian employees and an IDF veteran Israeli employee who were seemingly spending half the workday discussing October 7th and the Intifada.
Thank you. I was afraid that people will eventually forget about that point of inflection. I think for many of us, the specific event was what made us realize that you really can't separate technical issues from political ones.
I think if Damore had limited his criticism to the corporate DEI (which I found to be a bit heavy-handed and prone to critical theory groupthink) in a short doc, he probably would have been a bit more successful (in helping Google rein back its DEI training).
One rarely stated thing I learned over time working there is that managers read eng-misc and will prevent you from transferring to their team if they didn't like what you said, or how you said it, or who you said it to.
Considering they rolled back DEI along with everyone else after Trump's second victory, it's difficult to view those previous "values" as anything other than cynical kissing-up to the previous holders of power.
For what it's worth, I think for an organization that size that needs the best talent from anywhere, It's probably much better to discourage political activism at work. It can tend to turn away the most logical and reasonable well grounded people who want no part of it. The people who _need_ work to be political can go get hired for explicitly political organizations where that is the job.
Creating a distaste in people without like minds has been an intentional goal to cause exodus after exodus on various platforms, in companies and so on. If you let that get out of control, you can poison a culture almost unrecoverably. We can't let that happen to our critical tech companies for national security reasons.
Most people don't force politics into work as much as they have it forced upon them by, you know, living in a society. And the idea of "political activism" causing "distaste in people without like minds" is a misattribution, putting it mildly. But yeah, keep people quiet and heads down so the work can get done, regardless of what the work is or what it will be used for.
You have to remember that most companies _chose_ to setup DEI programs: it was a routine recommendation from lawyers because it gave them a string defense in lawsuits — the next time some manager abuses their position, they can cut that person loose and point to their various programs as evidence that whatever happened was limited to that manager and not company culture.
> Considering they rolled back DEI along with everyone else after Trump's second victory, it's difficult to view those previous "values" as anything other than cynical kissing-up to the previous holders of power.
The previous policies simply reflected the culture of employees and HR managers that had graduated from universities that openly practiced race-conscious admissions after Grutter v. Bollinger. The change in policy likely came not from the new administration, but the Supreme Court's SFFA decision in 2023 that reminded everyone the civil rights laws require race blindness.
It’s the cost of buying goodwill and lower regulatory burden from the administration in power at the time of implementation. DEI? Non DEI? Like an umbrella, just depends on the weather, its business as usual regardless.
I agree with your broader point, but DEI versus no DEI is a bad example. That's not an example of companies sucking up to the preferred policies of whatever administration is in power. Instead, they are responding to decisive legal decisions. There is a clear legal principle at issue: the civil rights laws are symmetric as to race. The Supreme Court held that in SFFA in 2023, and again in Ames in 2025 (which was a 9-0 decision). Most "DEI" programs create unacceptable legal exposure because they involve literature or practices as to white people that would be held up as evidence of racial discrimination in a Title VII lawsuit if the races were switched.
The clarification and specifics are welcomed. I did not have a better example at hand when I wrote the comment. Maybe ESG/climate change?
Yeah, Or crypto, AI, all sorts of things.
And it didn't even stop the antitrust suite so they threw in with Trump and then started sucking up to him. He's giving big tech everything they want so there is pretty much nothing he can do that will upset them.
Ive directly complained against the latte liberals screaming DEI.
Ive had them demand my pronouns. I really dont care, but saying that is absolutely not acceptable. Ill use your pronouns. I really do not care.
Ive been in meetings with 'land acknowledgements' with whatever former indians/native americans who were there. Its not like we're giving them the land back.
DEI and what it turned into was a big for-public-show that you knew the buzzwords and the antiwords. And if you didnt, or woukdnt play along, theyd ruin you.
The current MAGA MAHA meritocracy crap is also just the opposite, but the same games as DEI folks. They have their buzzwords and antiwords. Although, theyre a whole lot stupider and easier to manipulate and deal with.
They were not cynical kissing up to previous holders of power, they were desperate attempts to cover their asses against EEOC lawsuits. And they didn't end because of Trump's second victory, they ended because the Supreme Court defanged EEOC (and half the rest of the federal regulatory agencies).
The actual reason for the "corporate DEI" in tech was that since Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), EEOC could sue companies that had lower minority proportion than population norm for discrimination, and could could prove the discrimination in court using nothing but the racial makeup of the employees, and some policy at the company that could in theory have disparate impact. And under their standards, literally any policy has disparate impact.
This hit other sectors first, to which they responded by hiring more minorities. But tech had the problem that schools were consistently producing fewer minority engineering grads than the population proportion, and in a world where approximately every engineer got employed, some US tech companies would have to have lower minority representation than the population no matter what they did. And because the disparity between engineering grads and racial population proportion was so high, in fact most large companies would fail to meet the necessary minority proportions.
But EEOC would not instantly file suit against every offender, instead they would file ~40 such suits per year, targeting large companies that they considered particularly bad. And so companies that felt they might get hit soon started doing DEI programs, at first to attract more minority engineers (from other companies in the same sector, which would then fall under the limit, making it zero-sum), but then they realized that the EEOC didn't really sue the companies that were the loudest at touting their DEI credentials, and it all became extremely performative, no longer trying to attract minority talent but to be the loudest company talking about the subject. Iterate over that for a few decades and it got really weird.
It ended because Trump named 3 SC justices on his first term, and in a few important cases between 2023 and today, the new SC tore the whole thing down, and suing a company for disparate impact is now considered unconstitutional.
Did Googlers give lots of pressure to the management? I was wondering which side the management is closer to: being cowards, or being hypocritical
I always hate the James Damore discussion because it's like the least interesting part. You have a company dealing with internal political mayhem trying to find the least disruptive, not only internally but now externally because this shit has leaked. It's a workplace, and youre trying to keep people effective and working. And some googlers got too comfortable with what they were sharing on a work machine, not just to their coworkers, but tens of thousands of employees.
The support of war efforts is clearly a change in moral compass that is much more fascinating though.
100% agree. The James Damore flag was immediately taken up by major figures in transphobia (like Singal, Soh, etc) and pro-fascism campaigners (like Molyneux), both of which are political programs are absolutely incompatible with maintaining a non-hostile workplace environment for employees. (and not incidentally, both of which a premised on discredited bioessentialist pseudoscience)
I find it is a deeply cynical move, to be asked to place the James Damore "was it employer overreach-or-not?" episode in similar proportion to critiquing a company's actions regarding issues such as mass surveillance and/or assisting war efforts, especially when the accusations about those broader issues are tied to complicity in the 2020s resurgence in fascist politics. It is so cynical that I can't believe it isn't intentional.
> incompatible with maintaining a non-hostile workplace environment for employees
More commonly, this happens the other way around. For example, in Monica Helms' autobiography, he writes:
> Shortly after one of the training sessions had finished, I held back from leaving the training room and watched all the women make their way to the third-floor restroom. I had to pee too, so I went into the restroom I had become accustomed to using. The other women made it immediately clear they didn't want me there. Some gave me the evil eye while others rushed out when they saw me. I did my best to ignore them, stepped into a stall and did my thing. Then I went back to my desk to carry on with my work. Twenty minutes later, HR called me into their office.
> The new head of HR told me, "Some of the women have complained that you went into the third-floor restroom after today's training session."
Showing no empathy whatsoever for the women he imposed his presence on, he then goes on to explain how the company caved to his demands to use the female restroom, and that women who complained were given short shrift.
Clearly, this approach creates a hostile workplace environment for female employees.
What is the "bioessentialist pseudoscience" you're referring to?
One of them I refer to is "race essentialism" [1] which led to the long-discredited pseudoscience known as scientific racism[2], and its political associated program of eugenics,
and the other is "gender essentialism"[3] which has also been rejected by mainstream scholars across fields from biology to medicine to sociology to gender studies, and which acts in culture as a similarly pseudoscientific popular rationale for organizing society in ways that harm women and gender minorities.
The study of the field of racism is absolutely fascinating in that very quickly, the simple, obvious "commonsense" theories like "race exists as a meaningful biological category" turn out to be quite false.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism#Racial,_cultural_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_essentialism
What sorts of scientific racism (or gender essentialism) have Jesse Signal and Deborah Soh propagated? To be clear, I'm not asking for a primer on scientific racism, I'm asking you to substantiate the allegations you made against specific individuals.
You ought to read my comment carefully. Singal (not Signal) and Soh are "major figures in transphobia", and Molyneux is a pro-fascism campaigner. The former two (Singal, Soh) are advocates of "gender essentialism", and the latter travels internationally campaigning for the "race essentialism" and policies based on that. As you're aware of both of (Singal,Soh)'s first names already, is it a fair guess that you're already familiar with some of their transphobic work? Perhaps then, that is a good place to start. As just one example, Soh is actually so committed to gender essentialism that it's led her to advocate the approach that: your assigned male at birth teenager who tells you that they're trans and requests to transition is actually gay in my opinion so being affirming to them about that is homophobic ( from her article in reactionary online journal "Quillette").
Soh will of course try to dress that horrific construction from her article up in professional-sounding language, but our duty is in fact to address the thrust of her argument, not whether she attempts to frame it in polite language. You might also recognize Soh from her work in the atrocious Matt Walsh "documentary" that pretends to be about women but is entirely about invalidating trans people.
To make this more clear: Soh's need to provide an explanation for femininity in a person who is assigned male at birth while denying the validity of trans people is only necessary for a person operating from a bioessentialist lens. The need in Soh is so strong that it leads her to make totally unfounded and ridiculous claims in that article, and it also drove her promotion of the discredited (and retracted!) pseudoscientific 'Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria)' invented by Lisa Littman.
I'm not aware of Singal ever saying that all children who express identification outside their birth gender are actually just same-sex attracted (I'm less familiar with Soh's work). Rather, his point is that the guidance given to parents to identify signs of gender dysphoria is often rooted in gender essentialism. For instance, playing with the "wrong" toys for their birth gender is promoted as a sign of gender dysphoria [1].
Surely you'd agree that if a natal male says he is a boy and when asked why he replies "because I'm attracted to boys", then the responsible reply is "it's okay to be a gay boy", and not "yes, because you're attracted to boys you are a girl." It's certainly possible that a child will persist in expressing and opposite-sex gender even after exploring identity as a gay boy and will follow through with transition. But surely the responsible thing to do is to make sure that the child first understands that there's nothing wrong with being a boy attracted to other boys. First, eliminate the possibility that the boy is identifying as a girl out of a gender-essentialist belief that boys are only attracted to girls and he has to be a girl to attract boys. If after that, if the child still expresses a cross-sex gender identity then explore transitioning.
I don't think Singal has ever said that all - or even a majority - of children expressing a cross-sex gender identity are actually just same-sex attracted cis people. He only takes issue with legislation in some jurisdictions effectively prohibit medical professionals from exploring a gay male identity in this scenario, and effectively mandate social affirmation the moment a patients expressed a cross sex gender identity.
Even if you disagree with the above, surely at least you understand why I'm confused about the allegation that Singal is promoting gender essentialism. His concern is that gender essentialism is being misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria, and people aren't doing enough to accept boys wearing dresses, being attracted to other boys, and behaving in "feminine" ways, and being too quick to say "well, you're a girl". Even if you don't agree with his claims about misdiagnoses, it's abundantly clear he is against gender essentialism.
1. https://resources.healthgrades.com/right-care/childrens-heal...
Nah, James Damore just did a stupid thing at work and wasn't talented enough for it to be overlooked. He deserved to be fired. Morals don't need to come into it.
They lost their moral compass a while ago, but it had nothing to do with Damore.
Google exists to make money and is happy to change their opinions to suit the current force in power.
But that “critique” of gender diversity efforts said that the lack of women in CS was due to some innate difference in women (rather than a social division that is neither innate nor universal across time or cultures) While also decrying the lack of affirmative action for conservatives.
It’s neither the tipping point for Google, nor is it a hill worth dying on
[flagged]
I think there's a lot more political will now than there was a decade ago for explicitly repealing the sections of American civil rights law that define what a "hostile workplace" is, in order to make sure that something like Damore's memo would not count. Certainly, this is something I think about when evaluating political candidates.
What are the major historical examples where protecting employees from a "hostile workplace" is important? Racism? Misogyny? Homophobia? Do protection from these things look expendable to you?
I'm sure either of us could quickly find a bunch of people who would like to one or several of those acceptable again, yet us finding that such people exist would not tell us a damned thing about whether dismantling those protections is a good idea. Or supposing it does, then one might even make the case that those people existing is an excellent reason for having such a law in the first place.
> James Damore was a poorly educated person. He didn't understand how to use statistics and decided to use them in a hateful way.
What statistical argument did Damore make?
[flagged]
Sounds like you're responding to incorrect summaries? He was not intolerant of woman in the workplace. His memo was specifically in support of women in the workplace.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170813080340/https://www.theat...
No, I read the memo. What I was not doing is taking him at his word that he "values diversity and inclusion", I was reading his actual words and the sexist dogwhistles. Stating acceptance does not absolve other intolerance.
We must also look at the effect of his memo, which was to alienate many, and which caused a backlash that led to his firing. The company did not make a big deal of it just to fire him, it was individuals who were personally impacted and offended by it who made it what it was.
"dog whistles" are, more often than not, a thinly veiled way of putting words in other people's mouthes.
Damore's thesis amounted to "maybe women are 20% of software developers not because they're being discriminated against, but because they're exercising their own agency and choosing other fields."
Given that about 20% of CS grads are women, it seems like a pretty reasonable stance.
In isolation, it's a very naive, oblivious, and incurious stance.
Taken alongside the rest of the content, it's a rejection of the idea that there is systemic bias, and much of his memo is dedicated to ways in which that bias can be propagated and solidified.
At best, the memo paints Damore as someone who is radically uninformed and parroting old and invalid talking points that others have given to him. At worst it implies that he knows what he's doing and is trying to dismantle processes and culture that are improving women's access to the workplace.
So merely contesting the notion that systemic bias is the main driver of the gender disparity in tech is grounds for instant termination? Well, that's rather troubling given that the empirical evidence on the bias in tech company hiring doesn't support the narrative of anti-female bias: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484
Hn discussion of the paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25069644
Not at all. A good faith discussion in the right forum is fine.
That's not what the memo was. It ignored the evidence we have that there is systemic bias, it relied on tired and debunked tropes, and has explicit goals about preserving and elevating the privilege that perpetuates that systemic bias. That done in front of a large company filled with people personally affected by it is just a terrible idea. I'm open to discussion about this, but from the right people (those affected, with the experience) in the right context. James Damore was neither.
But honestly, if you read the memo and think it sounds reasonable, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. These biases are deeply rooted and take decades of introspection to overcome. I've been on that journey for probably 15 years and I've still got blind spots.
And what evidence of systemic bias would that be?
The experiment I linked above sent monitored the callback rates of applicants sent out to Bay Area tech companies for technical roles, and saw higher callback rates for women. This is the sort of prototypical evidence we use as an example of systemic anti-Black bias where Black applicants are called back less frequently than white applicants.
Is Google, specifically, systemically biased against women? Cross-referencing the diversity reports they publish [1], with employment statistics [2] does not show an underrepresentation of women. Google has also taken controversial steps, such as tying executive performance reviews to the representation of "underrepresented groups" - that term has included women at every company I've worked at, but if that's not the case at Google please correct me. When Google conducted an investigation into whether women were underpaid, they discovered that the disparity leaned the other way [3].
Perhaps maybe some introspection is warranted on your part, and revisit the assumptions you have about gender bias at Google and in the tech industry in general.
1. https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/819bcce604bf5ff7...
2. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
3. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-fi...
And this is why I said that I'm not going to change your mind.
The gender bias is clear in individual experience and data, all it takes is talking to women (or people of colour, or whatever under represented group you want) to see it.
I think Google does pretty well on this, largely due to the diversity programs that Damore was calling to have abolished.
And what is that data? Again you've referenced data or evidence for anti-female bias, and yet again you neglect to share it.
Data could definitely change my mind: what percentage of applicants to software developer roles at Google are women, and what percentage of offers extended for those roles go to women? If the former is substantially smaller than the latter, that would definitely sway me.
Google did fire a lot of people when this happened on both sides, seems like they were just tired about the whole thing and wanted political fights out of the company. Damore since he started it, and anyone that got too upset about it and said things they shouldn't have was also fired, as were the people who got too upset about those that got upset.
Would the National Labor Review Board's legal opinion count as an incorrect summary?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4380791-NLRB-Advice-...
> statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.
That is not a remotely accurate representation of what he wrote.
Good for you. Us. I always wondered what being pacifist means specifically in this space. Thank you!
I think what is being lost is that despite Google having lost its morals at various points, and Don't Be Evil being burried, this man's resignation does signal yet another dark turning point in the future of the Google organization.
They are now openly partnering with war industries and the government to assist them in doing things like bombing a school full of girls, killing hundreds in an entirely indefensible war of aggression.* This is a very dark red line to cross and despite Googlers being wealthy and privilaged, it is nonetheless a significant protest that deserves to be heard on its own terms. Ideally, a protest would change policy at the company.
Google management: Stop cooperating with the immoral and illegally operating War Department!
* I don't have evidence Google directly participated in the Minab school bombing, but this is the side they are supporting.
This is exhausting.
Google is behaving like a company in decline, committing crimes, and vigorously enshittifying products trying to increase revenue.
Ah, a litany of left wing grievances. Got it.
So much bitterness in these comments, looking at the world in black and white. With 200,000 employees, google is a complex set of humans, where many will have different experiences. People doing really good work, and people doing the opposite.
well at least the TC and stock appreciation was worth it right?
sorry not being a jerk but many of these kinds of posts just come off as performative and attention seeking. you could have just quit, literally everyone knows how FAANG operates.
These are the most successful companies in the history of the world. What do you expect? DO you need a PhD to figure this out?
“I got the bag and now have developed a conscience"
So the guy was Google's planted ~expert~ lobbyist for the European Commission and now he's rich enough to quit, and makes a blogpost about it because people are rightfully skeptical about his motives?
Translation: now I can FIRE.
> Sundar Pichai in 2018 stated very clearly that “AI applications we will not pursue: …
> 3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms.
Really?
Algorithms for ads and mass surveillance were always at the core of Google model.
And there is not really such thing as "internationally accepted norms", Google, as a pioneer, literally defined them at the time.
>Algorithms for ads and mass surveillance were always at the core of Google model.
You may not have been around back then, but we had half a decade of Google before that model, and it was quite nice, nice enough to get us to leave our other search providers--and to hand them the keys to our inboxes.
. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people.
So if our enemies had no qualms at all about doing this, wouldn't it make sense that we have weapons that can at least counter, and potentially fight back? Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland?
> "Don't be evil"
Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?
Your argument is not really responding to his.
He has, and has had, a specific moral philosophy he follows. When he took the job the public (and once he started, internal) words and actions of the company fit within that philosophy (or closely enough). Now the company has changed and they don’t fit. Further, the obvious changes happened without any real notice or explanation.
It seems reasonable in that situation to leave. FWIW; I was in the same situation, and left.
Do you fault him for his personal moral code? He is not telling you how you should act.
I'm not a pacifist, but I wouldn't work in any place related to the US military for the simple reason that it is mostly used to wage wars of aggression these days, or provide materiel to other countries that do. Stop doing that and then we can seriously talk about defensive military tech. I left NVIDIA in part because it is too heavily involved in these things (and Palantir and Anduril specifically).
Regarding this specifically:
> Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland?
it again depends on what exactly said AI does. If it's used to surveil most people most of the time, for example, then that probably does reduce the odds of an ISIS-linked attack on US, but the surveillance itself would be a greater injury at that scale.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of https://enwp.org/Pacifism
I have met pacifists who say all war is bad* and thus the Russia Ukraine war should immediately end, without any ideas on how to get that to happen except a few who imply Ukraine should roll over and be consumed.
*or this is an inter-capitalist war
I once met a horse that could count. That hardly makes horses a good representation of math professors.
Our experiences with a few instances of something is rarely sufficient for us to suggest or imply some kind of universality.
Or, you don't understand the main criticism of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism#Criticism
> if the AI is used to stop an ISIS
Describe that scenario to me. What precisely is the language model going to do? To defeat a _terrorist_ organization? I feel like this is way to asymmetric of a philosophy to actually work, but, I'm curious to know what your imagination holds on this one.
> Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?
The government _is_ impotent in protecting you. If they weren't we wouldn't need courts. Or a constitution. Or the revolution which started it.
Finally, there is an argument to be made, that our government, and it's imperious ways, were the primary force which led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Perhaps if we weren't telling lies about yellow cake and mobile chemical labs while indiscriminately bombing innocent civilians we wouldn't be facing such a ridiculous world security posture.
If you actually read the article you'd know that the Googles government isn't friendly with the author's government, which makes your nitpicking nonsensical.
>Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?
When they rename "Department of Defense" to "Department of War", there can be no mistake about the intention of the government. They aren't "protecting" us, they are actively starting unnecessary wars, because cruelty has always been the point for them.
Did you just realize this now? The name "Department of Defense" has always been a euphemism. The last time we were in a defensive war was World War II--ironically, when the DoD was still called the "Department of War."
Nice whataboutism. This pointless internet interaction is over.
It’s not “whataboutism” because it’s relating to the same event, not a different event. In context of the facts, it seems like your complaint is that the name is being changed to accurately reflect what the DOD was already doing.
he is a self described pacifist. how nice to be him.
I don't know, it seems like being a pacifist is harder, since it exposes you to violence to which you cannot retaliate while alienating you from your peers with less stringent moral opinions. Doesn't seem like it really makes anything easier. You don't have to look hard to find that history is replete with pacifists who paid social and legal penalties for their moral stance.
He also said that "defense" was "different", so he's not that principled.
I assume if he actually felt threatened personally he wouldn't have any issues with developing weapons (through full-disk encryption or unbreakable DRM or locking people out of their devices or whatever).