4 ms·

> Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir?' Why not? When people in positions of power hold ignorant and/or harmful opinions, a stir sh

> Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir?' Why not? When people in positions of power hold ignorant and/or harmful opinions, a stir should be made. One individual in particular comes to mind. > What kind of unforgiving and judgemental culture are we living in? The kind where public figures curry favor with their bases of obstinately illiberal^[1] followers by intentionally spreading divisive sentiment? Nobody is a victim just because people disagree with what they're saying and say as much to their faces. Bad ideas do not in theory deserve a platform beyond what simple freedom of expression provides them. Striving for "diversity of thought" does not mean we should elevate willful ignorance and demagoguery. ^[1] In the general sense of the word. Far-left whackos included, though I think they're a bit less scary than what's going on on the right these days.

ehsankia 8y ago
This wasn't really a "position of power" though, it was just a council that would meet once in a while to talk about AI ethics. It was also 1 person out of 8. Don't get me wrong, I think her views are despicable, but if you can't even allow a single person of opposing view in your council, that only shows insecurity in your views. I highly doubt having one person with some past bigoted opinions is going to completely overthrow an 8 person council. If anything, once you stack your council with people who all have the same views, then the one individual that comes to your mind will use exactly that to completely undermine the entire council.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > some past bigoted opinions These are not opinions she held in the past, these are opinions she holds now and which she actively promotes.
- matt4077 8y ago
  The are opinions that I would vehemently disagree with, yet not consider illegitimate. The Catholic Church, for example, does and says all sorts of horrible shit. Yet they have a rich intellectual history, are somewhat consistent (i. e. against abortion and also against the death penalty), and for better or worse represent a sizable portion of the population. This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories. If you want them on your ethics board, you need to also invite flat earthers and people believing there’s a ham sandwich that rules the world. Because who are you to judge some opinions more legit than others.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories. If you want them on your ethics board, you need to also invite flat earthers and people believing there’s a ham sandwich that rules the world. Because who are you to judge some opinions more legit than others. James wasn't invited because she believes Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracies; so that argument doesn't make sense. Those conspiracies are clearly unrelated to AI ethics and so she was clearly representing something else. She was likely included because she is obviously great leadership material given what she has achieved as an African-American women. Someone of that caliber, and representing a conservative viewpoint to boot, was obviously a reasonable addition to any ethics group.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      She never wrote anything on AI ethics, so she most definitely was invited for some other, unrelated action of hers. it‘s also not unrelated, because it speaks to her ability to evaluate facts, and to her soundness of mind.
      - roenxi 8y ago
        > She never wrote anything on AI ethics, so she most definitely was invited for some other, unrelated action of hers. Yes. > it‘s also not unrelated, because it speaks to her ability to evaluate facts, and to her soundness of mind. Well, her record of success also speaks to her ability to evaluate facts and suggests she is doing fine. Believing something that there is clear evidence against is a very common affliction. As long as someone isn't actively acting on their misconceptions, it doesn't suggest anything. If you demand that leaders are perfect, you will discover all your leaders are liars.
        watwut 8y ago
        Just because you are successful culture warrior does not mean you ability to evaluate facts is great or that you are good choice for AI ethics board - unless you are choosing that person because of successful culture war which you want to recreate there. The choice of leader matter great deal. It influences goals and approaches. Leader matters and is strategical choice.
- caconym_ 8y ago
  I mean, on the face of it an "AI ethics council" sponsored by (?) Google has the potential to make some fairly far-reaching decisions. > then the one individual that comes to your mind will use exactly that to completely undermine the entire council. He'll do it anyway. "Wind turbines cause cancer," etcetera. If we start toadying to the anti-intellectual bent of modern "conservatism", we've already lost, and we should just turn on Fox News and wait to die.
Veen 8y ago
Can you think of a conservative who you don't think holds "ignorant or harmful opinions"? If not, all you've said is that conservatives shouldn't be allowed a voice in context such as this. I for one, although not a conservative, think that conservative thinkers may have important contributions to make to ethical debates around technology and AI.
- caconym_ 8y ago
  > conservative thinkers may have important contributions to make to ethical debates around technology and AI. "Conservative" is a word that has become overloaded. Same with "liberal". In fact progressive/conservative and liberal/illiberal are orthogonal axes. I don't have a problem with conservatism, per se—I have a problem with illiberalism, and that's what's on display here. On an abstract level I think "diversity of thought" (can't believe I'm using those words) is necessary in talking about the ethics of applying new technologies. E.g. human cloning: what are the benefits? What are the pitfalls? If everybody in the discussion is on the same side, the result won't be useful, and I totally agree that someone with intellectual integrity, who identifies with traditional conservative principles, could have a lot of value to bring to the table in that situation. On the other end of the spectrum we have the "homosexuality is a slippery slope to bestiality" and "men have penises, women have vaginas, GET OVER IT!!! LOL <insert laugh-cry emoji>" crowd. Frankly, no, I don't think those people have anything of value to add, and I don't think we should allow those who indulge them to influence the public discourse. Of course, that horse has left the barn. There is a middle ground, and I think this woman falls there. I think the highlighted tweets show that she has opinions on social issues that have been shaped by toxic identity politics and demagoguery. I personally judge her poorly for that but I'm not ready to make an overall judgment because those three tweets are all I know about her. I don't think there is anybody who has never said something they regret (of course, I doubt she regrets saying these things, but you get the point). FWIW I think "the left" goes too far in their reaction to things like this. My comment was more meant to address the general oppression complex "conservatives" have over the "diversity of thought" issue.
  - Veelox 8y ago
    So you set up a spectrum and seem reasonable so I would like to know where on your above spectrum of acceptable to not allowed to "influence the public discourse". As a predicate, say I have a professional history of interacting with folks with diverse racial, gender, LGBT+, backgrounds. If I believe the below things, where on the spectrum would I fall? 1) I think that a physical border should be erected on the southern border. 2) I think same-sex marriage should be allowed. 3) I think those who engage in same-sex relationships are engaging in an immoral activity. 4) I think there are 2 genders, male and female, and they are fixed at birth. This breaks down for some people with medical conditions but make up a small enough percentage with should deal with that on a case by case basis.

ehsankia 8y ago

This wasn't really a "position of power" though, it was just a council that would meet once in a while to talk about AI ethics. It was also 1 person out of 8. Don't get me wrong, I think her views are despicable, but if you can't even allow a single person of opposing view in your council, that only shows insecurity in your views. I highly doubt having one person with some past bigoted opinions is going to completely overthrow an 8 person council. If anything, once you stack your council with people who all have the same views, then the one individual that comes to your mind will use exactly that to completely undermine the entire council.

DanBC 8y ago
> some past bigoted opinions These are not opinions she held in the past, these are opinions she holds now and which she actively promotes.
matt4077 8y ago
The are opinions that I would vehemently disagree with, yet not consider illegitimate. The Catholic Church, for example, does and says all sorts of horrible shit. Yet they have a rich intellectual history, are somewhat consistent (i. e. against abortion and also against the death penalty), and for better or worse represent a sizable portion of the population. This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories. If you want them on your ethics board, you need to also invite flat earthers and people believing there’s a ham sandwich that rules the world. Because who are you to judge some opinions more legit than others.
- roenxi 8y ago
  > This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories. If you want them on your ethics board, you need to also invite flat earthers and people believing there’s a ham sandwich that rules the world. Because who are you to judge some opinions more legit than others. James wasn't invited because she believes Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracies; so that argument doesn't make sense. Those conspiracies are clearly unrelated to AI ethics and so she was clearly representing something else. She was likely included because she is obviously great leadership material given what she has achieved as an African-American women. Someone of that caliber, and representing a conservative viewpoint to boot, was obviously a reasonable addition to any ethics group.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    She never wrote anything on AI ethics, so she most definitely was invited for some other, unrelated action of hers. it‘s also not unrelated, because it speaks to her ability to evaluate facts, and to her soundness of mind.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      > She never wrote anything on AI ethics, so she most definitely was invited for some other, unrelated action of hers. Yes. > it‘s also not unrelated, because it speaks to her ability to evaluate facts, and to her soundness of mind. Well, her record of success also speaks to her ability to evaluate facts and suggests she is doing fine. Believing something that there is clear evidence against is a very common affliction. As long as someone isn't actively acting on their misconceptions, it doesn't suggest anything. If you demand that leaders are perfect, you will discover all your leaders are liars.
      - watwut 8y ago
        Just because you are successful culture warrior does not mean you ability to evaluate facts is great or that you are good choice for AI ethics board - unless you are choosing that person because of successful culture war which you want to recreate there. The choice of leader matter great deal. It influences goals and approaches. Leader matters and is strategical choice.
caconym_ 8y ago
I mean, on the face of it an "AI ethics council" sponsored by (?) Google has the potential to make some fairly far-reaching decisions. > then the one individual that comes to your mind will use exactly that to completely undermine the entire council. He'll do it anyway. "Wind turbines cause cancer," etcetera. If we start toadying to the anti-intellectual bent of modern "conservatism", we've already lost, and we should just turn on Fox News and wait to die.

Veen 8y ago

Can you think of a conservative who you don't think holds "ignorant or harmful opinions"? If not, all you've said is that conservatives shouldn't be allowed a voice in context such as this. I for one, although not a conservative, think that conservative thinkers may have important contributions to make to ethical debates around technology and AI.

caconym_ 8y ago
> conservative thinkers may have important contributions to make to ethical debates around technology and AI. "Conservative" is a word that has become overloaded. Same with "liberal". In fact progressive/conservative and liberal/illiberal are orthogonal axes. I don't have a problem with conservatism, per se—I have a problem with illiberalism, and that's what's on display here. On an abstract level I think "diversity of thought" (can't believe I'm using those words) is necessary in talking about the ethics of applying new technologies. E.g. human cloning: what are the benefits? What are the pitfalls? If everybody in the discussion is on the same side, the result won't be useful, and I totally agree that someone with intellectual integrity, who identifies with traditional conservative principles, could have a lot of value to bring to the table in that situation. On the other end of the spectrum we have the "homosexuality is a slippery slope to bestiality" and "men have penises, women have vaginas, GET OVER IT!!! LOL <insert laugh-cry emoji>" crowd. Frankly, no, I don't think those people have anything of value to add, and I don't think we should allow those who indulge them to influence the public discourse. Of course, that horse has left the barn. There is a middle ground, and I think this woman falls there. I think the highlighted tweets show that she has opinions on social issues that have been shaped by toxic identity politics and demagoguery. I personally judge her poorly for that but I'm not ready to make an overall judgment because those three tweets are all I know about her. I don't think there is anybody who has never said something they regret (of course, I doubt she regrets saying these things, but you get the point). FWIW I think "the left" goes too far in their reaction to things like this. My comment was more meant to address the general oppression complex "conservatives" have over the "diversity of thought" issue.
- Veelox 8y ago
  So you set up a spectrum and seem reasonable so I would like to know where on your above spectrum of acceptable to not allowed to "influence the public discourse". As a predicate, say I have a professional history of interacting with folks with diverse racial, gender, LGBT+, backgrounds. If I believe the below things, where on the spectrum would I fall? 1) I think that a physical border should be erected on the southern border. 2) I think same-sex marriage should be allowed. 3) I think those who engage in same-sex relationships are engaging in an immoral activity. 4) I think there are 2 genders, male and female, and they are fixed at birth. This breaks down for some people with medical conditions but make up a small enough percentage with should deal with that on a case by case basis.