11 ms·

The board seems like a pointless exercise, given that it only meets 4 times in the year, and doesn't have any policy-making power. It's crazy that people are c

by ummonk 8y ago

The board seems like a pointless exercise, given that it only meets 4 times in the year, and doesn't have any policy-making power. It's crazy that people are calling for someone to be expelled from the board because they're from a conservative think thank though. You want a diversity of viewpoints at the table.

gowld 8y ago
They aren't excited for having viewpoints like "transgendered people are all either crazy or liars" at the table.
- bigj0n 8y ago
  Source of the quote?
  - zavi 8y ago
    Imagination and anger
thundergolfer 8y ago
People are protesting it because she's unqualified and holds abhorrent positions on issues like climate change and LGBTQ rights. This is a board concerned with AI Ethics, and so diversity isn't really an important part of the game. If she forwards positions which are unethical, and would forward a vision of AI that is unethical, then she should not be on the board. Google shouldn't be so meek as to pretend that she has a valuable perspective on these issues merely being being conservative. Conservatives have been wrong on incredibly important issues many times before.
- Robelius 8y ago
  Isn't the point of having different viewpoints so that they can argue over what is ethical? What's the point of a board to make decisions if everyone fundamentally believes the same thing? At that point, you already made your decisions and are trying to reinforce them in an echo chamber. When some people say they want a diverse field of thought, what they really mean is they want a diverse field of thought that they agree with. I don't agree with some of her views, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have a voice.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Ar-Curunir 8y ago
    Not every viewpoint deserves equal space or time. One such useless viewpoint is that "Trans people shouldn't exist"
    - true_religion 8y ago
      The UN human rights council has Saudi Arabia and the US on it, and they vehemently disagree on issues all the time.
      - woodruffw 8y ago
        This appears to be a better argument for excluding Saudi Arabia from the UN HRC than the position that all viewpoints are worth hearing. It's the Human Rights Council after all, not the Human Rights Skeptics Council.
      - rat87 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons the UN human rights council is considered a useless organization
      - mike00632 8y ago
        This fact is normally used to discredit the UN Human Rights Council.
    - Bendingo 8y ago
      Did the ex board member actually say this exact statement? Or are you paraphrasing and dramatising for effect? Such an inflammatory quote should surely have a reference to be taken seriously
      - Ar-Curunir 8y ago
        From the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497 https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497
- jazzyjackson 8y ago
  Your emphasis on ethics is telling - you suppose there's just the one correct version? And diverse opinions are wrong opinions?
- pdonis 8y ago
  You're assuming that you know what "the" ethical position is, or at least that Google does. If that were really true, AI ethics, and indeed ethics in general, would not be an issue, and there would be no need for this board. Everyone would just consult the ethics authority to tell them what was ethical. Do I need to spell out the problems with that?
  - woodruffw 8y ago
    You don't have to be absolutely confident in any particular moral system to have an extremely high degree of confidence that all sensible moral systems tell us to treat LGBT individuals with basic dignity (and to not destroy the planet, for that matter). The point of an ethics board is, presumably, to work out the hard problems in ethics.
    - pdonis 8y ago
      > You don't have to be absolutely confident in any particular moral system to have an extremely high degree of confidence that all sensible moral systems tell us to treat LGBT individuals with basic dignity This assumes that you know what "basic dignity" means. But that's what the disagreement in the case you mention (LGBT) is about. To people who fundamentally oppose LGBT-ness, LGBT people are making a serious ethical mistake, one that affects society as a whole, not just them as individuals, and treating them with basic dignity requires taking that into account. > The point of an ethics board is, presumably, to work out the hard problems in ethics. All problems in ethics are hard problems. Thinking that that isn't true, that there are some ethical questions that are so obvious that a board of AI ethics doesn't need to consider them, is itself, I would say, an ethical mistake.
      - woodruffw 8y ago
        > This assumes that you know what "basic dignity" means. It does indeed. And I do, indeed: basic dignity entails treating a person as an end in themselves, and never merely as a means. > All problems in ethics are hard problems. I don't think this is true. It's not particularly hard for me to answer that skinning cats alive for pleasure, pointlessly hurting other human beings, and irrationally loathing oneself are all obvious moral wrongs, in the sense we would not be willing to accept any moral system that permits them (much less encourages them). As you mentioned in your parent comment, an ethics board should have a point. In order to have a point, we need to admit of at least some ethical baseline[1]. If not, we'll continue the most pointless ethical pursuit of all: re-litigating arguments that reduce to the ones we give philosophy undergraduates for practice. We have bigger fish to fry. [1]: Even, as I have said, if that ethical baseline adheres to no particular moral system.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  > This is a board concerned with AI Ethics, and so diversity isn't really an important part of the game. This reads a lot like "diversity doesn't matter all of a sudden, because I disagree with some of the diverse views represented here"
  - thundergolfer 8y ago
    It supposed to emphasise that in matters of ethics, when we have strong arguments for a particular position their isn't a need to invite weak arguments for position on the basis of promoting 'thought diversity'. For instance on an Animal and Food ethics board it doesn't make sense to accomodate someone who denies the moral relevance of animals, because that is an indefensible view in modern philosophy. Their increasing the "diversity" of the viewpoints on the board would be of negative value, not positive value. It is the same sort of situation here.
Ar-Curunir 8y ago
Don't downplay the issue. It's not that she's conservative; I'm sure Google's executive groups are full of relatively conservative people. No, the problem with her is that she's a transphobe and racist.
- mantas 8y ago
  Lots of even non-conservative people don't accept trans movement. It's quite a high bar if only trans-ok people are considered sane enough to participate in ethics board. E.g. I'm 100% against trans participating in sports. It's disgusting when men pretend to be women just to have a record on their name. It's even more disgusting when it's celebrated as diversity or progressive or whatever. Does that make me just a "relatively conservative" or full-on "transphobe"?
  - webXL 8y ago
    No, you're just thinking aloud (and you earned some downvotes!) A word of advice: don't even respond to someone claiming a black woman is racist/"transphobe" just because she has conservative beliefs. There's no coming back for this person or anyone who thinks that is a sane comment.
    - mantas 8y ago
      Eh, precious internet points are not that important anyway. I agree it's a waste of my time to respond to comments like that. But on the other hand, letting those comments dominate the public space unchallenged is just legitimising their views. Which leads to vocal minority getting even bigger and louder. At the end of the day, it's the most vocal people who set the playrules. And I'm not a fan of ever-more-progressive rules, CoCs and legislations.
  - adjkant 8y ago
    To break this down a bit instead of only downvoting: > I'm 100% against trans participating in sports There's a nuanced argument to be made here. > It's disgusting when men pretend to be women just to have a record on their name. This is not that nuanced argument. I can assure you no one that is trans "pretends" to be a woman for sports records. That comment (as well as the word choice of "disgusting") shows a severe lack of understanding of trans people. > It's even more disgusting when it's celebrated as diversity or progressive or whatever. This shows a particular bias against "progressive/diversity" ideas and colors the comments before them with an even worse light that highlights the lack of understanding. > Does that make me just a "relatively conservative" or full-on "transphobe"? Just like anything, there are gradients and being transphobic now doesn't mean you have to be in the future.
kodz4 8y ago
Robert Oppenheimer Vs Edward Teller is a good example of what happens when two brilliant characters don't agree. Everyone in between those two ends of the spectrum did not matter to final outcomes. When it comes down to which direction a gigagantic ship has to head One side has to win. So pick a side guys. Know which side you are on. Nothing is going to be smooth about what lies ahead.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  > Robert Oppenheimer Vs Edward Teller is a good example of what happens when two brilliant characters don't agree. Teller publically accused Oppenheimer of being a traitor and had his security clearance pulled and then blacklisted as a communist because he didn’t see the point in building Teller’s Hydrogen bomb whose sole purpose is kill as many civilians as possible. In the end, the bomb was built, and Oppenheimer’s career was over. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller#Oppenheimer_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller#Oppenheimer_co...
  - paganel 8y ago
    Teller was a psychopath, pure and simple. He was also pretty smart which made him even more dangerous, I reguard him as one of the few humans whose decisions and actions could have wiped us all out as a species.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
      Under what definition of smart a smart human works to create the means to end the species?
      - paganel 8y ago
        An interesting question which I find that would take me too long to answer, the shortest answer that I can come up is that I’m writing this comment from a device called a smart-phone whose battery is not replaceable, meaning that in maximum two years or so it will be in a dumpster together with other thousands, even hundreds of thousands of similar smart-phones, with all the nice rare and toxical metals of which they are composed slowly making their way into the ground and into our water-sources. What I mean to say is that we ourselves as a species can be seen as being pretty smart from a certain point of view (we went to the Moon, we designed and currently make electronic devices that can fit in our pockets and with each we can have conversations with total strangers from half a world away) but at the same time we do our best in order to destroy the livable habitat from the unique planet we’ve managed to populate so far. As such, people like Teller are the perfect representatives of this side of ours as a species: smart but self-destructive.
destroyevil 8y ago
> You want a diversity of viewpoints at the table. No I don't. I only want correct viewpoints. Putting someone on an ethics board within an important institution at the very least improves their reputation and possibly gives them some amount of influence within the institution. Consequently, we shouldn't give such positions to evil people. I think that the Heritage Foundation is evil, and I'll do whatever I can to prevent it from having more influence in society. If you disagree with me, then you need to do one of three things: 1. Convince me, a trans woman, that the Heritage Foundation, which is trying to keep it legal to discriminate against me, is not evil. 2. Convince me that it's a good idea to give positions of potential influence to evil people. 3. Fight me over it.

by ummonk 8y ago

gowld 8y ago

They aren't excited for having viewpoints like "transgendered people are all either crazy or liars" at the table.

bigj0n 8y ago
Source of the quote?
- zavi 8y ago
  Imagination and anger

thundergolfer 8y ago

People are protesting it because she's unqualified and holds abhorrent positions on issues like climate change and LGBTQ rights. This is a board concerned with AI Ethics, and so diversity isn't really an important part of the game. If she forwards positions which are unethical, and would forward a vision of AI that is unethical, then she should not be on the board. Google shouldn't be so meek as to pretend that she has a valuable perspective on these issues merely being being conservative. Conservatives have been wrong on incredibly important issues many times before.

Robelius 8y ago
Isn't the point of having different viewpoints so that they can argue over what is ethical? What's the point of a board to make decisions if everyone fundamentally believes the same thing? At that point, you already made your decisions and are trying to reinforce them in an echo chamber. When some people say they want a diverse field of thought, what they really mean is they want a diverse field of thought that they agree with. I don't agree with some of her views, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have a voice.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Ar-Curunir 8y ago
  Not every viewpoint deserves equal space or time. One such useless viewpoint is that "Trans people shouldn't exist"
  - true_religion 8y ago
    The UN human rights council has Saudi Arabia and the US on it, and they vehemently disagree on issues all the time.
    - woodruffw 8y ago
      This appears to be a better argument for excluding Saudi Arabia from the UN HRC than the position that all viewpoints are worth hearing. It's the Human Rights Council after all, not the Human Rights Skeptics Council.
    - rat87 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons the UN human rights council is considered a useless organization
    - mike00632 8y ago
      This fact is normally used to discredit the UN Human Rights Council.
  - Bendingo 8y ago
    Did the ex board member actually say this exact statement? Or are you paraphrasing and dramatising for effect? Such an inflammatory quote should surely have a reference to be taken seriously
    - Ar-Curunir 8y ago
      From the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497 https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497
jazzyjackson 8y ago
Your emphasis on ethics is telling - you suppose there's just the one correct version? And diverse opinions are wrong opinions?
pdonis 8y ago
You're assuming that you know what "the" ethical position is, or at least that Google does. If that were really true, AI ethics, and indeed ethics in general, would not be an issue, and there would be no need for this board. Everyone would just consult the ethics authority to tell them what was ethical. Do I need to spell out the problems with that?
- woodruffw 8y ago
  You don't have to be absolutely confident in any particular moral system to have an extremely high degree of confidence that all sensible moral systems tell us to treat LGBT individuals with basic dignity (and to not destroy the planet, for that matter). The point of an ethics board is, presumably, to work out the hard problems in ethics.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > You don't have to be absolutely confident in any particular moral system to have an extremely high degree of confidence that all sensible moral systems tell us to treat LGBT individuals with basic dignity This assumes that you know what "basic dignity" means. But that's what the disagreement in the case you mention (LGBT) is about. To people who fundamentally oppose LGBT-ness, LGBT people are making a serious ethical mistake, one that affects society as a whole, not just them as individuals, and treating them with basic dignity requires taking that into account. > The point of an ethics board is, presumably, to work out the hard problems in ethics. All problems in ethics are hard problems. Thinking that that isn't true, that there are some ethical questions that are so obvious that a board of AI ethics doesn't need to consider them, is itself, I would say, an ethical mistake.
    - woodruffw 8y ago
      > This assumes that you know what "basic dignity" means. It does indeed. And I do, indeed: basic dignity entails treating a person as an end in themselves, and never merely as a means. > All problems in ethics are hard problems. I don't think this is true. It's not particularly hard for me to answer that skinning cats alive for pleasure, pointlessly hurting other human beings, and irrationally loathing oneself are all obvious moral wrongs, in the sense we would not be willing to accept any moral system that permits them (much less encourages them). As you mentioned in your parent comment, an ethics board should have a point. In order to have a point, we need to admit of at least some ethical baseline[1]. If not, we'll continue the most pointless ethical pursuit of all: re-litigating arguments that reduce to the ones we give philosophy undergraduates for practice. We have bigger fish to fry. [1]: Even, as I have said, if that ethical baseline adheres to no particular moral system.
throwawaysea 8y ago
> This is a board concerned with AI Ethics, and so diversity isn't really an important part of the game. This reads a lot like "diversity doesn't matter all of a sudden, because I disagree with some of the diverse views represented here"
- thundergolfer 8y ago
  It supposed to emphasise that in matters of ethics, when we have strong arguments for a particular position their isn't a need to invite weak arguments for position on the basis of promoting 'thought diversity'. For instance on an Animal and Food ethics board it doesn't make sense to accomodate someone who denies the moral relevance of animals, because that is an indefensible view in modern philosophy. Their increasing the "diversity" of the viewpoints on the board would be of negative value, not positive value. It is the same sort of situation here.

Ar-Curunir 8y ago

Don't downplay the issue. It's not that she's conservative; I'm sure Google's executive groups are full of relatively conservative people. No, the problem with her is that she's a transphobe and racist.

mantas 8y ago
Lots of even non-conservative people don't accept trans movement. It's quite a high bar if only trans-ok people are considered sane enough to participate in ethics board. E.g. I'm 100% against trans participating in sports. It's disgusting when men pretend to be women just to have a record on their name. It's even more disgusting when it's celebrated as diversity or progressive or whatever. Does that make me just a "relatively conservative" or full-on "transphobe"?
- webXL 8y ago
  No, you're just thinking aloud (and you earned some downvotes!) A word of advice: don't even respond to someone claiming a black woman is racist/"transphobe" just because she has conservative beliefs. There's no coming back for this person or anyone who thinks that is a sane comment.
  - mantas 8y ago
    Eh, precious internet points are not that important anyway. I agree it's a waste of my time to respond to comments like that. But on the other hand, letting those comments dominate the public space unchallenged is just legitimising their views. Which leads to vocal minority getting even bigger and louder. At the end of the day, it's the most vocal people who set the playrules. And I'm not a fan of ever-more-progressive rules, CoCs and legislations.
- adjkant 8y ago
  To break this down a bit instead of only downvoting: > I'm 100% against trans participating in sports There's a nuanced argument to be made here. > It's disgusting when men pretend to be women just to have a record on their name. This is not that nuanced argument. I can assure you no one that is trans "pretends" to be a woman for sports records. That comment (as well as the word choice of "disgusting") shows a severe lack of understanding of trans people. > It's even more disgusting when it's celebrated as diversity or progressive or whatever. This shows a particular bias against "progressive/diversity" ideas and colors the comments before them with an even worse light that highlights the lack of understanding. > Does that make me just a "relatively conservative" or full-on "transphobe"? Just like anything, there are gradients and being transphobic now doesn't mean you have to be in the future.

kodz4 8y ago

Robert Oppenheimer Vs Edward Teller is a good example of what happens when two brilliant characters don't agree. Everyone in between those two ends of the spectrum did not matter to final outcomes. When it comes down to which direction a gigagantic ship has to head One side has to win. So pick a side guys. Know which side you are on. Nothing is going to be smooth about what lies ahead.

jonathankoren 8y ago
> Robert Oppenheimer Vs Edward Teller is a good example of what happens when two brilliant characters don't agree. Teller publically accused Oppenheimer of being a traitor and had his security clearance pulled and then blacklisted as a communist because he didn’t see the point in building Teller’s Hydrogen bomb whose sole purpose is kill as many civilians as possible. In the end, the bomb was built, and Oppenheimer’s career was over. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller#Oppenheimer_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller#Oppenheimer_co...
- paganel 8y ago
  Teller was a psychopath, pure and simple. He was also pretty smart which made him even more dangerous, I reguard him as one of the few humans whose decisions and actions could have wiped us all out as a species.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
    Under what definition of smart a smart human works to create the means to end the species?
    - paganel 8y ago
      An interesting question which I find that would take me too long to answer, the shortest answer that I can come up is that I’m writing this comment from a device called a smart-phone whose battery is not replaceable, meaning that in maximum two years or so it will be in a dumpster together with other thousands, even hundreds of thousands of similar smart-phones, with all the nice rare and toxical metals of which they are composed slowly making their way into the ground and into our water-sources. What I mean to say is that we ourselves as a species can be seen as being pretty smart from a certain point of view (we went to the Moon, we designed and currently make electronic devices that can fit in our pockets and with each we can have conversations with total strangers from half a world away) but at the same time we do our best in order to destroy the livable habitat from the unique planet we’ve managed to populate so far. As such, people like Teller are the perfect representatives of this side of ours as a species: smart but self-destructive.

destroyevil 8y ago

> You want a diversity of viewpoints at the table. No I don't. I only want correct viewpoints. Putting someone on an ethics board within an important institution at the very least improves their reputation and possibly gives them some amount of influence within the institution. Consequently, we shouldn't give such positions to evil people. I think that the Heritage Foundation is evil, and I'll do whatever I can to prevent it from having more influence in society. If you disagree with me, then you need to do one of three things: 1. Convince me, a trans woman, that the Heritage Foundation, which is trying to keep it legal to discriminate against me, is not evil. 2. Convince me that it's a good idea to give positions of potential influence to evil people. 3. Fight me over it.