4 ms·

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 s

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.
  - mustacheemperor 3y 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.
    - RelativeDelta 3y ago
      That may very well be true "in your view" but, if you'll excuse my pessimism, that doesn't mean very much if it results in China or India developing more effective models faster and more cheaply. We may be diverse, but that needn't mean every sector of every niche in every industry must be so or that it would be better if it were. Our position in the world is relative. Our power comes from the relative delta between us and "them", whomever it is we happen to be competing with. To forget that fundamental relation, even in service to our personal sense of morality, is solipsism.
      - mustacheemperor 3y ago
        Well, that is your view. We are both just voicing our opinions, so without any concrete evidence neither of us can fairly state one as an outright fact, pessimistic or not. I will respond to your points, but since our conversation began as a discussion about academic behavioral research and is now 100% an exchange of opinion between non-experts, I'm going to get off at this station. >if it results in China or India developing more effective models faster and more cheaply Why should we project that possibility? The most successful research centers for new AI development have been American organizations like OpenAI and Google with clearly stated diversity policies. And of course, this OP is not about private companies, it's about a public resource program. Do you have any evidence that China and India are developing more effective models faster and more cheaply and that it's because of some specific lack of attention paid to ensuring public resources are broadly accessible to all demographics? >We may be diverse, but that needn't mean every sector of every niche in every industry must be so or that it would be better if it were. Rather than address this whole point, I'll revisit that we are talking about a federally funded public education program. I do not think a federally funded program to develop a bigger AI workforce in America would be more successful if it did not serve all Americans, and especially not if some of the funding were diverted to gatekeeping its resources to specific demographics. This is strictly personal opinion, but mine is: America is not China or India and that extends to the values enshrined in our founding documents and constitutional amendments. It is my view one of those values is equal opportunity for all, and it is my view we should not compromise our values for a perceived opportunity to better "compete" on an arbitrarily constrained playing field with other players we feel do not share those values. I think modern history has repeatedly proven that democratic and equitable organizations and countries prevail over those that are not and I don't see where in the lesson plan of America's history we would glean the insight that we should compromise our values now, in this case.

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.
- mustacheemperor 3y 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.
  - RelativeDelta 3y ago
    That may very well be true "in your view" but, if you'll excuse my pessimism, that doesn't mean very much if it results in China or India developing more effective models faster and more cheaply. We may be diverse, but that needn't mean every sector of every niche in every industry must be so or that it would be better if it were. Our position in the world is relative. Our power comes from the relative delta between us and "them", whomever it is we happen to be competing with. To forget that fundamental relation, even in service to our personal sense of morality, is solipsism.
    - mustacheemperor 3y ago
      Well, that is your view. We are both just voicing our opinions, so without any concrete evidence neither of us can fairly state one as an outright fact, pessimistic or not. I will respond to your points, but since our conversation began as a discussion about academic behavioral research and is now 100% an exchange of opinion between non-experts, I'm going to get off at this station. >if it results in China or India developing more effective models faster and more cheaply Why should we project that possibility? The most successful research centers for new AI development have been American organizations like OpenAI and Google with clearly stated diversity policies. And of course, this OP is not about private companies, it's about a public resource program. Do you have any evidence that China and India are developing more effective models faster and more cheaply and that it's because of some specific lack of attention paid to ensuring public resources are broadly accessible to all demographics? >We may be diverse, but that needn't mean every sector of every niche in every industry must be so or that it would be better if it were. Rather than address this whole point, I'll revisit that we are talking about a federally funded public education program. I do not think a federally funded program to develop a bigger AI workforce in America would be more successful if it did not serve all Americans, and especially not if some of the funding were diverted to gatekeeping its resources to specific demographics. This is strictly personal opinion, but mine is: America is not China or India and that extends to the values enshrined in our founding documents and constitutional amendments. It is my view one of those values is equal opportunity for all, and it is my view we should not compromise our values for a perceived opportunity to better "compete" on an arbitrarily constrained playing field with other players we feel do not share those values. I think modern history has repeatedly proven that democratic and equitable organizations and countries prevail over those that are not and I don't see where in the lesson plan of America's history we would glean the insight that we should compromise our values now, in this case.