5 ms·

I'm underwhelmed. In this specific example, the individual in question could've gotten out ahead of the press cycle and explained herself. That she didn't means

I'm underwhelmed. In this specific example, the individual in question could've gotten out ahead of the press cycle and explained herself. That she didn't means the beliefs she holds as reported probably are her beliefs, and yeah---that's unacceptable for this role. This isn't thoughtless litmus-testing; this is "Google has a track record of errors regarding its trans userbase and is a company that specifically wants to do better there." If she doesn't see trans people as valid, she's the wrong fit for the role.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kuzehanka 8y ago
>If she doesn't see trans people as valid, she's the wrong fit for the role. Surely you can see how that generalises to 'if <decision maker> doesn't hold <my view> then they're not fit to make decisions' and that you're basically demonstrating exactly what's being discussed?
- fixermark 8y ago
  No, because not all ethical view points are equivalent or interchangeable. And we're not talking about any old ethics board, we're talking about an ethics board at Google, which goes out of its way to be trans inclusive.
  - kuzehanka 8y ago
    Thank you for your candid answer. Can we then sum up your stance in two statements: 1: not all ethics viewpoints are equal, and yours are superior 2: in this instance, you believe that the above opposed viewpoint does not deserve any representation at an ethics board, even if it is represents a significant population of the US and the world? Is that correct? This is your stance?
    - fixermark 8y ago
      I think you're confusing my personal viewpoint with my observation on what Google appears to have done in this specific context. But for what it's worth, in the specific question of trans individuals, my personal view point is that majorities have been wrong before, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't be wrong again. This is one of those times. Trans exclusionism doesn't pass the "Do not ban that which is not harmful to others" sniff test for freedom-oriented society. But again, my personal viewpoint doesn't rule the Google corporation's decisions. However, we shouldn't be surprised when a company that has positioned itself to be clearly trans-inclusive doesn't find somebody who denies the dignity of trans people acceptable on their ethics board.
      - colpabar 8y ago
        You are missing the forest for the trees. The commenters above are trying to articulate that ultimately, you are okay with a group of people shutting down a discussion if the views of the participants involved don't align with their own. You seem to have strong opinions regarding how this can apply to discussions about trans issues, which is fine, but you are still saying that if someone doesn't hold an opinion you agree with, then it's perfectly okay to prevent them from participating. What's the point of a discussion if the only people that are allowed to participate all agree on everything?
        fixermark 8y ago
        I think the trees are really significant here because the other commenters are trying to generalize an instance that can't be generalized without discarding significant details. To give a concrete example of how that over-generalization is incorrect: Kay Cole James hasn't even been shut down. She's welcome to participate in the public discussion of AI and ethics. On her own platform. Over there. Which is what James has done in the past and is welcome to continue to do, without the implicit imprimatur of having her views taken seriously by an ethics board for one of the largest software engineering companies in the world. Being barred from speaking is entirely different from being denied a seat at someone's table. Or are we also upset that The Heritage Foundation doesn't have Miss Major Griffin-Gracy on their experts panel?
raxxorrax 8y ago
> that's unacceptable for this role Do we really need to play facts <-> opinion? In a discussion about ethics you include as many viewpoints possible or it become dishonest immediately. You are not a priest or something like that. It has taken too long to accept premised authority.
- fixermark 8y ago
  my opinion on this topic is irrelevant. But Google's opinion on who is on Google's AI ethics board matters very much, and it appears some things are settled questions for Google. Such as the humanity and dignity of trans individuals.
  - anon12345690 8y ago
    humanity? people use this word for PC virtue points. all people already have the same rights. trans people are not denied anything.
- xnyan 8y ago
  I don't accept people who advocate suppressing the rights of trans people as members of society. I'm fine if you judge me for that or think I'm moralizing, because I am. I can live with that.
  - lagadu 8y ago
    You see, this is the difference between us: I do accept you in my society despite my believing that anyone who believes they have the right to determine whether someone should belong or not in their society based solely on their own beliefs is not worthy of the air they breathe. I do consider myself morally and intellectually superior but I do fight for you to have the same rights as me and everyone else despite that and I welcome your dissent.
  - anon12345690 8y ago
    trans people are people. they already have rights as people. nothing is being suppressed.
BeetleB 8y ago
>In this specific example, the individual in question could've gotten out ahead of the press cycle and explained herself. That she didn't means the beliefs she holds as reported probably are her beliefs, I call this the "I can't understand why X behaves like this, so the reason must be..." In other words, from complete uncertainty arises certainty. The reason could be simpler. It could be that she doesn't believe she has to justify every aspect of her existence for a role where it likely doesn't matter. I sure as hell wouldn't discuss my views on classes of people or climate change for a position that requires a stretch of the imagination to be tied to these topics.
- fixermark 8y ago
  These topics matter for a Google AI board. Google uses machine learning for information classification and filtering, and they've had issues in the past with over-broad or misapplication. "Why Has 'Transgender' Become a Trigger Word For YouTube?" [https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-has-transgender-become-a-trigger-word-for-youtube https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-has-transgender-become-a-t...] Having someone on the board that is starting from a premise of "That outcome is fine" runs counter to Google's existing stance on the topic.
rmah 8y ago
What does it even mean to "see trans people as valid"? What does it mean to see X group of people as valid or invalid? Honestly, I don't understand this statement.
- fixermark 8y ago
  I'm speaking loosely, but by "valid" here I just mean "a full person with human dignity and value." James' Heritage Foundation has come out strongly in favor of the Trump administration's attempts to ban transgender people from military service, which is somewhat incompatible with the view that transgender people are valid.
  - kuzehanka 8y ago
    Why do you care only about transgender people? There are hundreds of larger groups which face far more severe marginalisation in society. Trans people have a net positive social status where they are actively sought by employers. Isn't it time to move on to helping other minorities? Looking at your comments here, it's starting to look like you have a singular agenda will just support whatever larger movement best aligns to it without considering the moral or fairness implications. Nothing wrong with that I guess, but that is the antithesis of inclusiveness or ethics.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      "Whataboutism" is a common way to derail a topic and, carried to its limit, suggests that all action is equally futile because there's always some more worthy cause. I have transgender, transsexual, and transvestite friends who I care deeply about. That's absolutely true. I want the world to be more welcoming to them, because I see the disapproval society heaps upon them as sitting at one of those particular intersections of unfair and unnecessary. If you have groups you also care deeply about, feel free to share.
    - tzs 8y ago
      > There are hundreds of larger groups which face far more severe marginalisation in society. Trans people have a net positive social status where they are actively sought by employers. Isn't it time to move on to helping other minorities? This sounds like you think we need to serialize helping marginalized groups. Was that the intent?
Veelox 8y ago
To put the point user redwood made differently. There is a trend that certain questions have a "right answer" and if you don't believe the "right answer" it is okay to bar you from any and all discourse. While you might think "Trans rights are worth the sacrifice" the general trend in tech is that there is a "right answer" to same-sex marriage (Brendan Eich), biological differences between gender (James Damore), politics (all the flake Peter Thiel got for supporting Trump) and now trans rights. This trend is worrying because it shuts down discussion. It is also alienating because if you disagree with one of the "right answers" you can get fired for it, which seems kind of counter to the narrative of diversity and inclusion. This is why you sometimes hear people voice the criticism of "diversity in everything but thought"
- fixermark 8y ago
  I'd personally be really cautious about making the mistake of conflating Damore with other topics. Damore, in particular, was fired legally because there are, in fact, some topics not up for discussion (https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-rules-google-firing-james-damore-was-legal/ https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-rules-google-firing-...). Companies aren't legally free to entertain the question "Maybe women can't be as good at computer engineering as men" without running very quickly into established law that prevents acting as if that hypothesis were true. (Damore's also a bad example for supporting the hypothesis that holding wrong opinions bans you from discourse, because it appears he's been pretty vocal about his opinions since Google let him go). If a person were concerned about being fired for expressing a politically-charged viewpoint, I'd personally counsel them to consider whether that viewpoint is worth the price of the job, and if it isn't? Be silent. Silence is free. Making the decision that one's viewpoint is more important than the job is always a decision one is free to make. I don't know why this thought is so scary to some people. I hypothesize that they're too accustom to operating in a pseudonymous consequence-free world where you can say whatever you want without social censure or personal ramifications, but that's not how most of the world works, and the advent of the Internet didn't change that fact.
  - Veelox 8y ago
    I would agree that Damore is not a Shining White Knight of Truth. His actions since being fired are questionable. That said, in most of the Damore discussion I got a sense that there was a "right answer" to most of the questions he posed. >If a person were concerned about being fired for expressing a politically-charged viewpoint, I'd personally counsel them to consider whether that viewpoint is worth the price of the job, and if it isn't? Be silent. Silence is free. Making the decision that one's viewpoint is more important than the job is always a decision one is free to make. While this is a valid stance to have, I don't think the left as a whole follows this standard consistently. When there is talk of diversity and inclusion, its normally shown as a higher ideal that the left is ascribing to. So, if it really is I higher ideal, we can change the subject of your idea and see if it still works. Would you support me giving the below advice to a gay coworker? f a person were concerned about being fired for expressing a LGBT viewpoint, I'd personally counsel them to consider whether that viewpoint is worth the price of the job, and if it isn't? Be silent. Silence is free. Making the decision that one's ability to be out of the closet is more important than the job is always a decision one is free to make.
lagadu 8y ago
> that's unacceptable for this role. As determined by who? You? Being transphobic (or racist or vegetarian or religious or egalitarian or...) is something that people are allowed to be, no matter how much someone else dislikes that.
- fixermark 8y ago
  Right, but it's not appropriate for Google's AI ethics board. It runs counter to the corporate ethos, and that ethos of course has weight on the counsel they retain.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kuzehanka 8y ago

>If she doesn't see trans people as valid, she's the wrong fit for the role. Surely you can see how that generalises to 'if <decision maker> doesn't hold <my view> then they're not fit to make decisions' and that you're basically demonstrating exactly what's being discussed?

fixermark 8y ago
No, because not all ethical view points are equivalent or interchangeable. And we're not talking about any old ethics board, we're talking about an ethics board at Google, which goes out of its way to be trans inclusive.
- kuzehanka 8y ago
  Thank you for your candid answer. Can we then sum up your stance in two statements: 1: not all ethics viewpoints are equal, and yours are superior 2: in this instance, you believe that the above opposed viewpoint does not deserve any representation at an ethics board, even if it is represents a significant population of the US and the world? Is that correct? This is your stance?
  - fixermark 8y ago
    I think you're confusing my personal viewpoint with my observation on what Google appears to have done in this specific context. But for what it's worth, in the specific question of trans individuals, my personal view point is that majorities have been wrong before, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't be wrong again. This is one of those times. Trans exclusionism doesn't pass the "Do not ban that which is not harmful to others" sniff test for freedom-oriented society. But again, my personal viewpoint doesn't rule the Google corporation's decisions. However, we shouldn't be surprised when a company that has positioned itself to be clearly trans-inclusive doesn't find somebody who denies the dignity of trans people acceptable on their ethics board.
    - colpabar 8y ago
      You are missing the forest for the trees. The commenters above are trying to articulate that ultimately, you are okay with a group of people shutting down a discussion if the views of the participants involved don't align with their own. You seem to have strong opinions regarding how this can apply to discussions about trans issues, which is fine, but you are still saying that if someone doesn't hold an opinion you agree with, then it's perfectly okay to prevent them from participating. What's the point of a discussion if the only people that are allowed to participate all agree on everything?
      - fixermark 8y ago
        I think the trees are really significant here because the other commenters are trying to generalize an instance that can't be generalized without discarding significant details. To give a concrete example of how that over-generalization is incorrect: Kay Cole James hasn't even been shut down. She's welcome to participate in the public discussion of AI and ethics. On her own platform. Over there. Which is what James has done in the past and is welcome to continue to do, without the implicit imprimatur of having her views taken seriously by an ethics board for one of the largest software engineering companies in the world. Being barred from speaking is entirely different from being denied a seat at someone's table. Or are we also upset that The Heritage Foundation doesn't have Miss Major Griffin-Gracy on their experts panel?

raxxorrax 8y ago

> that's unacceptable for this role Do we really need to play facts <-> opinion? In a discussion about ethics you include as many viewpoints possible or it become dishonest immediately. You are not a priest or something like that. It has taken too long to accept premised authority.

fixermark 8y ago
my opinion on this topic is irrelevant. But Google's opinion on who is on Google's AI ethics board matters very much, and it appears some things are settled questions for Google. Such as the humanity and dignity of trans individuals.
- anon12345690 8y ago
  humanity? people use this word for PC virtue points. all people already have the same rights. trans people are not denied anything.
xnyan 8y ago
I don't accept people who advocate suppressing the rights of trans people as members of society. I'm fine if you judge me for that or think I'm moralizing, because I am. I can live with that.
- lagadu 8y ago
  You see, this is the difference between us: I do accept you in my society despite my believing that anyone who believes they have the right to determine whether someone should belong or not in their society based solely on their own beliefs is not worthy of the air they breathe. I do consider myself morally and intellectually superior but I do fight for you to have the same rights as me and everyone else despite that and I welcome your dissent.
- anon12345690 8y ago
  trans people are people. they already have rights as people. nothing is being suppressed.

BeetleB 8y ago

>In this specific example, the individual in question could've gotten out ahead of the press cycle and explained herself. That she didn't means the beliefs she holds as reported probably are her beliefs, I call this the "I can't understand why X behaves like this, so the reason must be..." In other words, from complete uncertainty arises certainty. The reason could be simpler. It could be that she doesn't believe she has to justify every aspect of her existence for a role where it likely doesn't matter. I sure as hell wouldn't discuss my views on classes of people or climate change for a position that requires a stretch of the imagination to be tied to these topics.

fixermark 8y ago
These topics matter for a Google AI board. Google uses machine learning for information classification and filtering, and they've had issues in the past with over-broad or misapplication. "Why Has 'Transgender' Become a Trigger Word For YouTube?" [https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-has-transgender-become-a-trigger-word-for-youtube https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-has-transgender-become-a-t...] Having someone on the board that is starting from a premise of "That outcome is fine" runs counter to Google's existing stance on the topic.

rmah 8y ago

What does it even mean to "see trans people as valid"? What does it mean to see X group of people as valid or invalid? Honestly, I don't understand this statement.

fixermark 8y ago
I'm speaking loosely, but by "valid" here I just mean "a full person with human dignity and value." James' Heritage Foundation has come out strongly in favor of the Trump administration's attempts to ban transgender people from military service, which is somewhat incompatible with the view that transgender people are valid.
- kuzehanka 8y ago
  Why do you care only about transgender people? There are hundreds of larger groups which face far more severe marginalisation in society. Trans people have a net positive social status where they are actively sought by employers. Isn't it time to move on to helping other minorities? Looking at your comments here, it's starting to look like you have a singular agenda will just support whatever larger movement best aligns to it without considering the moral or fairness implications. Nothing wrong with that I guess, but that is the antithesis of inclusiveness or ethics.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    "Whataboutism" is a common way to derail a topic and, carried to its limit, suggests that all action is equally futile because there's always some more worthy cause. I have transgender, transsexual, and transvestite friends who I care deeply about. That's absolutely true. I want the world to be more welcoming to them, because I see the disapproval society heaps upon them as sitting at one of those particular intersections of unfair and unnecessary. If you have groups you also care deeply about, feel free to share.
  - tzs 8y ago
    > There are hundreds of larger groups which face far more severe marginalisation in society. Trans people have a net positive social status where they are actively sought by employers. Isn't it time to move on to helping other minorities? This sounds like you think we need to serialize helping marginalized groups. Was that the intent?

Veelox 8y ago

To put the point user redwood made differently. There is a trend that certain questions have a "right answer" and if you don't believe the "right answer" it is okay to bar you from any and all discourse. While you might think "Trans rights are worth the sacrifice" the general trend in tech is that there is a "right answer" to same-sex marriage (Brendan Eich), biological differences between gender (James Damore), politics (all the flake Peter Thiel got for supporting Trump) and now trans rights. This trend is worrying because it shuts down discussion. It is also alienating because if you disagree with one of the "right answers" you can get fired for it, which seems kind of counter to the narrative of diversity and inclusion. This is why you sometimes hear people voice the criticism of "diversity in everything but thought"

fixermark 8y ago
I'd personally be really cautious about making the mistake of conflating Damore with other topics. Damore, in particular, was fired legally because there are, in fact, some topics not up for discussion (https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-rules-google-firing-james-damore-was-legal/ https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-rules-google-firing-...). Companies aren't legally free to entertain the question "Maybe women can't be as good at computer engineering as men" without running very quickly into established law that prevents acting as if that hypothesis were true. (Damore's also a bad example for supporting the hypothesis that holding wrong opinions bans you from discourse, because it appears he's been pretty vocal about his opinions since Google let him go). If a person were concerned about being fired for expressing a politically-charged viewpoint, I'd personally counsel them to consider whether that viewpoint is worth the price of the job, and if it isn't? Be silent. Silence is free. Making the decision that one's viewpoint is more important than the job is always a decision one is free to make. I don't know why this thought is so scary to some people. I hypothesize that they're too accustom to operating in a pseudonymous consequence-free world where you can say whatever you want without social censure or personal ramifications, but that's not how most of the world works, and the advent of the Internet didn't change that fact.
- Veelox 8y ago
  I would agree that Damore is not a Shining White Knight of Truth. His actions since being fired are questionable. That said, in most of the Damore discussion I got a sense that there was a "right answer" to most of the questions he posed. >If a person were concerned about being fired for expressing a politically-charged viewpoint, I'd personally counsel them to consider whether that viewpoint is worth the price of the job, and if it isn't? Be silent. Silence is free. Making the decision that one's viewpoint is more important than the job is always a decision one is free to make. While this is a valid stance to have, I don't think the left as a whole follows this standard consistently. When there is talk of diversity and inclusion, its normally shown as a higher ideal that the left is ascribing to. So, if it really is I higher ideal, we can change the subject of your idea and see if it still works. Would you support me giving the below advice to a gay coworker? f a person were concerned about being fired for expressing a LGBT viewpoint, I'd personally counsel them to consider whether that viewpoint is worth the price of the job, and if it isn't? Be silent. Silence is free. Making the decision that one's ability to be out of the closet is more important than the job is always a decision one is free to make.

lagadu 8y ago

> that's unacceptable for this role. As determined by who? You? Being transphobic (or racist or vegetarian or religious or egalitarian or...) is something that people are allowed to be, no matter how much someone else dislikes that.

fixermark 8y ago
Right, but it's not appropriate for Google's AI ethics board. It runs counter to the corporate ethos, and that ethos of course has weight on the counsel they retain.