8 ms·

Government gets involved in cutting edge technology and insists on (and funds) a "diverse workforce" initiative in an area where less than 1% of software engine

Government gets involved in cutting edge technology and insists on (and funds) a "diverse workforce" initiative in an area where less than 1% of software engineers have the capacity to work on these systems at a low level. The end result is often (not always) roles created where these new hires are so far removed from core activities that, as a matter of job security, they have to justify their roles with initiatives and requirements that cause all manner of dysfunction in the organization; and that establish a power dynamic where the company's mission shifts from customer and safety focus, to pacifying employee agendas.

culi 3y ago
Your analysis flat out refuses to acknowledge the inherent value-add that diversity in general brings to the field of AI. Also the only part in the whole thing where the word "diverse" is used is when talking about supporting higher education to create a diverse workforce. This is about education and support not quotas. You said "less than 1% of software engineers have the capacity" and that's exactly what it's trying to solve
- brigadier132 3y ago
  > Your analysis flat out refuses to acknowledge the inherent value-add that diversity in general brings to the field of AI Do you have actual quantified evidence that supports this? Also if you are going to cite a study, it should be reproducible.
  - mustacheemperor 3y ago
    The notion that diverse groups produce better innovation is a thoroughly researched and widely accepted tenet of modern organizational behavior research.[0] I grabbed the top google results for it, but I learned about it in school a decade ago. And like the other commenter noted, the Institutes component seems focused on fostering new AI talent all over the country, so ergo a part of that will be making its resources accessible to many different groups of people. A claim that this initiative would be more effective in its stated goals by confining its educational resources to a single population demographic seems like it would also demand research and concrete evidence. Would that even be legal? "Diverse" is one keyword in a whole paragraph about introducing an NSF funded program to provide educational resources for new workers to skill up on AI. America is a diverse country: Of course a program that serves all of America with that stated goal would create a diverse workforce. I'm a little confused why the top discussion on this thread has seized on that single word with such outrage. [0]https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation
    - RelativeDelta 3y ago
      Unfortunately that relationship has been disproven many times as it rests on a very weak definition of 'innovation' (Often substituting novelty in the form of simple recollection of terms or base concepts, regardless of how well those teams can convert those concepts into timely efficient and effective solutions.). If you were taught this a decade ago you likely are familiar with the "Striving, Storming, Thriving" study which demonstrates that relation especially well. I recall a recent hand-wringing study out of Harvard jam-packed with soothing language but showing that as teams diversify their ability to engage in shared risk-taking declines [0] [0] https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=61993 https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=61993
      - mustacheemperor 3y ago
        Well, that's interesting to learn - thank you. I'll have to reach out to my old professor since he keeps up with the state of the art, I'm curious what the rest of the current literature looks like. On the other hand, I still don't share the anguish over the term 'diverse' in this particular OP for the reasons I stated - if this program is designed to foster AI talent all over America, if successful it will by definition foster diverse talent. Like if the program wasn't designed to help America build a diverse AI workforce, then it would be designed to create a demographically constrained, homogenized workforce. I wouldn't expect us to be happy about that and I wouldn't think of it as a good allocation of federal tax money.
        RelativeDelta 3y ago
        The dichotomy in your last point is constructed. Something not being designed to do X does not mean it is designed to do Y. The hackles raised here over "diversity" are, as you note, likely related to demographic considerations as opposed to say geographic considerations. The argument is usually that the goal of government programs should be to accomplish a task as effectively and efficiently as possible. In the case of AI doing so is especially important in an era of rising geopolitical multipolarity. Sacrificing this for the sake of appeasing identity interest groups is short-sighted. As we briefly explored, arguments that demographic diversity augment this efficacy have yet to meaningfully materialize, while concrete evidence to the contrary has both in the literature and in large-scale behavioral patterns (the neighborhood trust studies come to mind). It's one of, if not THE, most contentious area of sociology and public policy right now because of the obvious implications. IMO that's why people latch onto it and why it's getting so much attention here. It's a hot button issue of grave importance that hasn't been solved yet and discussions around it are extremely painful and frequently stifled.
  - version_five 3y ago
    Real evidence would be if it was something that got naturally prioritized and didn't need to be shoved down people's throats. But instead many would rather believe there's some massive conspiracy that companies are involved in, so that they need to be coerced into doing what's apparently unequivocally in their best interests.
  - psychlops 3y ago
    If there were quantified evidence, there would be no need for mandates.
    - mustacheemperor 3y ago
      In that case, what does it indicate that most successful and productive to date research centers for AI, like Google and OpenAI, have comprehensive diversity hiring policies that far exceed anything required by law? And of course, the federal government is not mandating any behavior by private businesses - it is setting the charter for a publicly funded public resource initiative. The federal government often sets in writing directives for its agencies that the average Joe would view as common sense. For example, I think it's common sense that an effectively disseminated public resource initiative to expand America's AI workforce nationwide would result in building a diverse workforce.
- Alupis 3y ago
  > diversity in general brings to the field of AI Diversity of ideas is superior to diversity of skin color. Any initiative that seeks to create a "diverse workforce" by skin color consideration (even if coupled with other considerations) is inherently flawed. Goodhart's Law tells us these initiatives boil down to a checkbox or statistic - some number that must be met. Which naturally leads to underqualified or unqualified candidates being brought on because of skin color. Diversity of ideas is what you want. People of all skin colors come from all places, economic statuses, educational backgrounds, etc.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - UberFly 3y ago
    I fully believe the current US government and most businesses can't create any kind of public mandate, regardless of the content, without throwing in a section about diversity. They don't fully understand AI but they do know how to cover their collective butts.
- poorbutdebtfree 3y ago
  Once value is created by merit, the diversity and equity police come in demanding their share because their input will be so valuable. Hilarious and sad.
  - astrange 3y ago
    The word "meritocracy" was invented in a book about how it's a bad idea that doesn't work.
- zoiksmeboiks 3y ago
  If diversity was the goal that’s achieved by open source. Apparently the White House had yet to see Google leaked memo about that. This is about projecting leadership and relevancy to centrists they need to win in 2024. “Look, we saved your jobs!”
p1esk 3y ago
Example?
rockemsockem 3y ago
My read was that part of the value add of these new institutes is paying more people to do AI work, thus creating a larger AI workforce in the US and giving the US a competitive advantage. It seems like a no-brainer to try and make that growing workforce come from diverse backgrounds because that will just help AI skills permeate throughout society even more, thus increasing the workforce advantage.
- giantg2 3y ago
  Considering the nature of AI systems, it seems this would create monopolies in various domains and AI devs will never exceed a single digit share of the IT workforce.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >try and make that growing workforce come from diverse backgrounds If one's race is in question, that is racism no matter how you ice that (very rotten) cake. Same goes for sexism. Give equal pay and treat everyone equally, do not care for and be blind to one's race and sex. That is equality. Trying to manipulate the distributions is discrimination.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      As a Japanese (aka Asian, aka minority) American, I will say this: One party constantly calls me by a wide variety of labels, the other party treats me like just another man and American. I know which party I'm voting for, and it doesn't start with the letter D.
mustacheemperor 3y ago
Like culi, I read that as specific to the goal of expanding the "AI workforce" with new workers. I don't follow where you project the "creation of new roles far removed from core activities," from what I can see it has nothing to do with changing how individual businesses manage their hiring and staffing. The remark about diversity comes near the end of the block, after all the discussion about inter-agency collaboration, and seems, to me, to specifically refer to the goal to "bolster America’s AI R&D infrastructure and support the development of a diverse AI workforce." America is a very diverse country. A network of NSF institutes that is designed to expand America's AI R&D workforce will by definition create a diverse workforce if it effectively serves all Americans. I don't see why that's particularly objectionable at face. I definitely cannot figure how to read that paragraph and project forward to this future state: >the company's mission shifts from customer and safety focus, to pacifying employee agendas. From what I can read, the Institutes aren't going to be directing companies to do anything.
psychlops 3y ago
> they have to justify their roles with initiatives and requirements that cause all manner of dysfunction in the organization It's not necessarily the new hires causing the issues. If a company has a successful team that isn't diverse yet also needs to be seen as diverse, it will inevitably hire into non-core areas.

culi 3y ago

Your analysis flat out refuses to acknowledge the inherent value-add that diversity in general brings to the field of AI. Also the only part in the whole thing where the word "diverse" is used is when talking about supporting higher education to create a diverse workforce. This is about education and support not quotas. You said "less than 1% of software engineers have the capacity" and that's exactly what it's trying to solve

brigadier132 3y ago
> Your analysis flat out refuses to acknowledge the inherent value-add that diversity in general brings to the field of AI Do you have actual quantified evidence that supports this? Also if you are going to cite a study, it should be reproducible.
- mustacheemperor 3y ago
  The notion that diverse groups produce better innovation is a thoroughly researched and widely accepted tenet of modern organizational behavior research.[0] I grabbed the top google results for it, but I learned about it in school a decade ago. And like the other commenter noted, the Institutes component seems focused on fostering new AI talent all over the country, so ergo a part of that will be making its resources accessible to many different groups of people. A claim that this initiative would be more effective in its stated goals by confining its educational resources to a single population demographic seems like it would also demand research and concrete evidence. Would that even be legal? "Diverse" is one keyword in a whole paragraph about introducing an NSF funded program to provide educational resources for new workers to skill up on AI. America is a diverse country: Of course a program that serves all of America with that stated goal would create a diverse workforce. I'm a little confused why the top discussion on this thread has seized on that single word with such outrage. [0]https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation
  - RelativeDelta 3y ago
    Unfortunately that relationship has been disproven many times as it rests on a very weak definition of 'innovation' (Often substituting novelty in the form of simple recollection of terms or base concepts, regardless of how well those teams can convert those concepts into timely efficient and effective solutions.). If you were taught this a decade ago you likely are familiar with the "Striving, Storming, Thriving" study which demonstrates that relation especially well. I recall a recent hand-wringing study out of Harvard jam-packed with soothing language but showing that as teams diversify their ability to engage in shared risk-taking declines [0] [0] https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=61993 https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=61993
    - mustacheemperor 3y ago
      Well, that's interesting to learn - thank you. I'll have to reach out to my old professor since he keeps up with the state of the art, I'm curious what the rest of the current literature looks like. On the other hand, I still don't share the anguish over the term 'diverse' in this particular OP for the reasons I stated - if this program is designed to foster AI talent all over America, if successful it will by definition foster diverse talent. Like if the program wasn't designed to help America build a diverse AI workforce, then it would be designed to create a demographically constrained, homogenized workforce. I wouldn't expect us to be happy about that and I wouldn't think of it as a good allocation of federal tax money.
      - RelativeDelta 3y ago
        The dichotomy in your last point is constructed. Something not being designed to do X does not mean it is designed to do Y. The hackles raised here over "diversity" are, as you note, likely related to demographic considerations as opposed to say geographic considerations. The argument is usually that the goal of government programs should be to accomplish a task as effectively and efficiently as possible. In the case of AI doing so is especially important in an era of rising geopolitical multipolarity. Sacrificing this for the sake of appeasing identity interest groups is short-sighted. As we briefly explored, arguments that demographic diversity augment this efficacy have yet to meaningfully materialize, while concrete evidence to the contrary has both in the literature and in large-scale behavioral patterns (the neighborhood trust studies come to mind). It's one of, if not THE, most contentious area of sociology and public policy right now because of the obvious implications. IMO that's why people latch onto it and why it's getting so much attention here. It's a hot button issue of grave importance that hasn't been solved yet and discussions around it are extremely painful and frequently stifled.
- version_five 3y ago
  Real evidence would be if it was something that got naturally prioritized and didn't need to be shoved down people's throats. But instead many would rather believe there's some massive conspiracy that companies are involved in, so that they need to be coerced into doing what's apparently unequivocally in their best interests.
- psychlops 3y ago
  If there were quantified evidence, there would be no need for mandates.
  - mustacheemperor 3y ago
    In that case, what does it indicate that most successful and productive to date research centers for AI, like Google and OpenAI, have comprehensive diversity hiring policies that far exceed anything required by law? And of course, the federal government is not mandating any behavior by private businesses - it is setting the charter for a publicly funded public resource initiative. The federal government often sets in writing directives for its agencies that the average Joe would view as common sense. For example, I think it's common sense that an effectively disseminated public resource initiative to expand America's AI workforce nationwide would result in building a diverse workforce.
Alupis 3y ago
> diversity in general brings to the field of AI Diversity of ideas is superior to diversity of skin color. Any initiative that seeks to create a "diverse workforce" by skin color consideration (even if coupled with other considerations) is inherently flawed. Goodhart's Law tells us these initiatives boil down to a checkbox or statistic - some number that must be met. Which naturally leads to underqualified or unqualified candidates being brought on because of skin color. Diversity of ideas is what you want. People of all skin colors come from all places, economic statuses, educational backgrounds, etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- UberFly 3y ago
  I fully believe the current US government and most businesses can't create any kind of public mandate, regardless of the content, without throwing in a section about diversity. They don't fully understand AI but they do know how to cover their collective butts.
poorbutdebtfree 3y ago
Once value is created by merit, the diversity and equity police come in demanding their share because their input will be so valuable. Hilarious and sad.
- astrange 3y ago
  The word "meritocracy" was invented in a book about how it's a bad idea that doesn't work.
zoiksmeboiks 3y ago
If diversity was the goal that’s achieved by open source. Apparently the White House had yet to see Google leaked memo about that. This is about projecting leadership and relevancy to centrists they need to win in 2024. “Look, we saved your jobs!”

p1esk 3y ago

Example?

rockemsockem 3y ago

My read was that part of the value add of these new institutes is paying more people to do AI work, thus creating a larger AI workforce in the US and giving the US a competitive advantage. It seems like a no-brainer to try and make that growing workforce come from diverse backgrounds because that will just help AI skills permeate throughout society even more, thus increasing the workforce advantage.

giantg2 3y ago
Considering the nature of AI systems, it seems this would create monopolies in various domains and AI devs will never exceed a single digit share of the IT workforce.
Dalewyn 3y ago
>try and make that growing workforce come from diverse backgrounds If one's race is in question, that is racism no matter how you ice that (very rotten) cake. Same goes for sexism. Give equal pay and treat everyone equally, do not care for and be blind to one's race and sex. That is equality. Trying to manipulate the distributions is discrimination.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    As a Japanese (aka Asian, aka minority) American, I will say this: One party constantly calls me by a wide variety of labels, the other party treats me like just another man and American. I know which party I'm voting for, and it doesn't start with the letter D.

mustacheemperor 3y ago

Like culi, I read that as specific to the goal of expanding the "AI workforce" with new workers. I don't follow where you project the "creation of new roles far removed from core activities," from what I can see it has nothing to do with changing how individual businesses manage their hiring and staffing. The remark about diversity comes near the end of the block, after all the discussion about inter-agency collaboration, and seems, to me, to specifically refer to the goal to "bolster America’s AI R&D infrastructure and support the development of a diverse AI workforce." America is a very diverse country. A network of NSF institutes that is designed to expand America's AI R&D workforce will by definition create a diverse workforce if it effectively serves all Americans. I don't see why that's particularly objectionable at face. I definitely cannot figure how to read that paragraph and project forward to this future state: >the company's mission shifts from customer and safety focus, to pacifying employee agendas. From what I can read, the Institutes aren't going to be directing companies to do anything.

psychlops 3y ago

> they have to justify their roles with initiatives and requirements that cause all manner of dysfunction in the organization It's not necessarily the new hires causing the issues. If a company has a successful team that isn't diverse yet also needs to be seen as diverse, it will inevitably hire into non-core areas.