Talk:Timnit Gebru

I would like to go make a subheading for TESCREAL as a logical split on Timnit's page.

I've known about the deleted article, and from what I can tell, there was no established consensus that it was a conspiracy theory (A single link to someone's substack (WP:SPS) seems much less useful than the peer-reviewed articles about TESCREAL). This is more like her research topic, and part of what she communicates.

I don't necessarily disagree with the deletion of the article at the time, the concept that Dr gebru and Torres are pioneering is just new enough there weren't much sources to cite. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Avatar317, I'm not seeing any support in your sources for this sentence about Jeff Dean: "he stated that the paper ignored too much relevant recent research on ways to mitigate some of the problems described in it." Can you please point it out for me? Thanks. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@StainlessSteelScorpion: IIRC that is my paraphrase of multiple sources.

The NYT (may be behind a paywall) says: "In his note to employees, Mr. Dean said Google respected “her decision to resign.” Mr. Dean also said that the paper did not acknowledge recent research showing ways of mitigating bias in such systems."

And the Vox source says: "After Gebru’s departure, Google’s head of AI research Jeff Dean sent a note to Gebru’s department on December 3 saying that, after internal review, her research paper did not meet the company’s standards for publishing. ... Google determined that the paper was not up to its standards because it “ignored too much relevant research,” according to the memo Dean sent on Thursday. Dean also said in his memo that Google rejected Gebru’s paper for publication because she submitted it one day before its deadline for publication instead of the required two weeks."

I didn't think the timeline two weeks (which was to my recollection not mentioned in other sources) really matters enough to include it.

I'll also add this source, already in the article (MIT TechReview), and probably the most informative: "In his internal email, Dean, the Google AI head, said one reason the paper “didn’t meet our bar” was that it “ignored too much relevant research.” Specifically, he said it didn’t mention more recent work on how to make large language models more energy efficient and mitigate problems of bias. "

Does that seem like a reasonable paraphrase? ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes that looks good. Thank you! I've split the sentence into two just to increase clarity. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)