6 ms·

> 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 eviden

> 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
      - mustacheemperor 4y ago
        I appreciate the reply and I think you have accurately highlighted one reason this general area is such a trigger point on the board. In the context of this specific initiative, my view would still be: America is an inherently diverse place, so a program that seeks to develop an AI workforce across America but does not create a diverse one has not achieved “maximum effectiveness” and has not effectively served all of America.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  There’s a lot controversy because the “diversity” that actually occurs in the workplace is different from the diversity of organizational theory. For example, a company that employs you graduates of elite schools might be racially diverse, but if many of the employees graduated from 10 colleges and all live in San Francisco, their world views could be quite similar. “Diversity” can also be a political signal word. Progressives love diversity for reasons unrelated to management theory. In fact “diversity” can used to enforce rigid ideological orthodoxies. I’m sure that’s not what organizational scientists want, but it’s often what results.
version_five 4y 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 4y ago
If there were quantified evidence, there would be no need for mandates.
- mustacheemperor 4y 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.

mustacheemperor 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
    - mustacheemperor 4y ago
      I appreciate the reply and I think you have accurately highlighted one reason this general area is such a trigger point on the board. In the context of this specific initiative, my view would still be: America is an inherently diverse place, so a program that seeks to develop an AI workforce across America but does not create a diverse one has not achieved “maximum effectiveness” and has not effectively served all of America.
pyuser583 4y ago
There’s a lot controversy because the “diversity” that actually occurs in the workplace is different from the diversity of organizational theory. For example, a company that employs you graduates of elite schools might be racially diverse, but if many of the employees graduated from 10 colleges and all live in San Francisco, their world views could be quite similar. “Diversity” can also be a political signal word. Progressives love diversity for reasons unrelated to management theory. In fact “diversity” can used to enforce rigid ideological orthodoxies. I’m sure that’s not what organizational scientists want, but it’s often what results.

version_five 4y 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 4y ago

If there were quantified evidence, there would be no need for mandates.

mustacheemperor 4y 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.