> Said hires have thus far, as far as I can tell, not produced anything of substantial value
"As far as I can tell" is doing a lot of work here.
I can confirm this is untrue. I worked with someone like Gebru (definitely an activist researcher) at a non-FAANG and AI ethics drove 3 multimillion dollar deals. Was a better business case than most I built over that time.
Besides, saying they don't drive revenue is a critique of research roles, not Gebru...
Agreed: Even if one is cynical (as I am) about the reason these companies hire AI policy and ethics researchers (for PR and to deflect criticisms on how their products operate, far too often) - it is clear that many potential consumers and regulators (!) that are inclined to be skeptical or critical will think more positively of the company.
Also, let's be real. How much revenue are the vast majority of AI/ML researchers actually driving in these companies? Sure, someone gets promoted for multiple NeurIPS papers, and it looks great for the company. But most of the time, it doesn't directly impact products and revenue -- in the short-term -- and that's ok. Same deal for AI ethics and policy researchers.
"As far as I can tell" is doing a lot of work here.
I can confirm this is untrue. I worked with someone like Gebru (definitely an activist researcher) at a non-FAANG and AI ethics drove 3 multimillion dollar deals. Was a better business case than most I built over that time.
Besides, saying they don't drive revenue is a critique of research roles, not Gebru...