3 ms·

If gender of people influence your decisions in any way you are sexist and a discriminator, period.

LadyCailin 3y ago
That’s like saying adding a wheelchair lift to a building is ableist. By definition equity requires acknowledging and catering towards different demographics in different ways. I guess if you want to be pedantic, it’s discrimination, but in this case, that’s a good thing. You could also argue that equity is a bad thing, but I wholeheartedly disagree with that. However, your argument is simply logically unsound.
- lnenad 3y ago
  If gender was relevant to how an AI development company board operates then yes.
  - Solvency 3y ago
    The AI training corpus is literally based on approx 50% female data. So how are females not relevant to its governance exactly?
    - lnenad 3y ago
      How is that related to the board?
- rpmisms 3y ago
  No, your comparison is probably not what you're trying to say, since wheelchair-bound people have vastly different capabilities than the bipedal population. Unless you're trying to say women have different capabilities, which is true, but probably not the point you want to make.
  - LadyCailin 3y ago
    I am, and it is. Having a diverse board ensures that women’s viewpoints are taken into account in a way that men simply aren’t tuned into. That’s the whole point of diversity in the workplace, and particularly in leadership. Especially with women, who are 50% of the population.
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      What viewpoints would benefit the company that a woman can have that a man can't? I hear the talking point a lot, and it just doesn't make sense, unless it's a marketing firm or something.
jonbell 3y ago
If you know that putting four wheels on a car works better than putting three wheels on a car, that doesn't make you biased against three wheels. It makes you biased towards better results. We know that "thought diversity" on a team, which can take many forms, has a short term drawback (team gelling doesn't go as fast) and long term advantages (more ideas, better ideas, better resilience, etc etc). Read up.
- computerex 3y ago
  Diversity is good, but diversity for diversity's sake is not good. I think teams should be made based on merit, and if then the team is also diverse, all the more better. Although important, imo making diversity the most important criteria seems a bit misguided and somewhat idealistic although on paper and in principle it seems to be coming from a good place.
  - jonbell 3y ago
    Fair. This paper found the same thing. Women on teams leads to better results. But “token” members of teams do not. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01389-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01389-w
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Is there any evidence that gender is a primary determinant of "thought diversity"? I'd expect other factors, including age, upbringing, ethnicity, etc. have much more of an impact on diversity. A woman and a man who grew up in the same suburbs, went to the same school, have studied the same, etc. probably have very similar ideas on most topics than two men (or women for that matter) who have completely different upbringing. If thought diversity is what matters, a much better determinant is probably geographical distribution in upbringing and unique educational paths and unique previous employments (all of which can just as easily be estimated by a resume as gender).
  - jonbell 3y ago
    These are all reasonable questions. Here’s one paper of many that explains why the answer to your question is yes. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01389-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01389-w

That’s like saying adding a wheelchair lift to a building is ableist. By definition equity requires acknowledging and catering towards different demographics in different ways. I guess if you want to be pedantic, it’s discrimination, but in this case, that’s a good thing. You could also argue that equity is a bad thing, but I wholeheartedly disagree with that. However, your argument is simply logically unsound.

lnenad 3y ago
If gender was relevant to how an AI development company board operates then yes.
- Solvency 3y ago
  The AI training corpus is literally based on approx 50% female data. So how are females not relevant to its governance exactly?
  - lnenad 3y ago
    How is that related to the board?
rpmisms 3y ago
No, your comparison is probably not what you're trying to say, since wheelchair-bound people have vastly different capabilities than the bipedal population. Unless you're trying to say women have different capabilities, which is true, but probably not the point you want to make.
- LadyCailin 3y ago
  I am, and it is. Having a diverse board ensures that women’s viewpoints are taken into account in a way that men simply aren’t tuned into. That’s the whole point of diversity in the workplace, and particularly in leadership. Especially with women, who are 50% of the population.
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    What viewpoints would benefit the company that a woman can have that a man can't? I hear the talking point a lot, and it just doesn't make sense, unless it's a marketing firm or something.

jonbell 3y ago

If you know that putting four wheels on a car works better than putting three wheels on a car, that doesn't make you biased against three wheels. It makes you biased towards better results. We know that "thought diversity" on a team, which can take many forms, has a short term drawback (team gelling doesn't go as fast) and long term advantages (more ideas, better ideas, better resilience, etc etc). Read up.

computerex 3y ago
Diversity is good, but diversity for diversity's sake is not good. I think teams should be made based on merit, and if then the team is also diverse, all the more better. Although important, imo making diversity the most important criteria seems a bit misguided and somewhat idealistic although on paper and in principle it seems to be coming from a good place.
- jonbell 3y ago
  Fair. This paper found the same thing. Women on teams leads to better results. But “token” members of teams do not. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01389-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01389-w
_Algernon_ 3y ago
Is there any evidence that gender is a primary determinant of "thought diversity"? I'd expect other factors, including age, upbringing, ethnicity, etc. have much more of an impact on diversity. A woman and a man who grew up in the same suburbs, went to the same school, have studied the same, etc. probably have very similar ideas on most topics than two men (or women for that matter) who have completely different upbringing. If thought diversity is what matters, a much better determinant is probably geographical distribution in upbringing and unique educational paths and unique previous employments (all of which can just as easily be estimated by a resume as gender).
- jonbell 3y ago
  These are all reasonable questions. Here’s one paper of many that explains why the answer to your question is yes. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01389-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01389-w