8 ms·

OpenAI scrubs diversity commitment web page from its site

107 points by gpi 2y ago

anonylizard 2y ago
[flagged]
moralestapia 2y ago
[flagged]
401Hqvn 2y ago
[flagged]
- jongjong 2y ago
  Yeah pretty much. It's seems like it was the same people who were behind ESG/DEI who are now most keen to dismantle it. The 360 degrees turnaround was very noticeable. It coincided with Elon's purchase of Twitter and the start of Israel/Palestine conflict which highlighted some deep divides. All these wars, conflicts and social movements feel orchestrated but obviously there is no full or genuine consensus so it's bound to keep falling apart in spectacular ways which finance people use to extract profits... The real winners here. It leaves the more ideologically minded feeling confused and betrayed... Then business and political leaders keep talking about rebuilding trust. Just as they keep constructing new schemes. But how do you rebuild trust without trustworthiness? Felt like massive PsyOps. I'm not surprised at all that Trump got elected. It's like the overarching social narrative had literally gone insane and we were expected to follow along? We're approaching a point where only insane people CAN keep up with the 'current thing' at this stage... Or you need a very short memory...
  - ther11276 2y ago
    > we were expected to follow along That is how many US corporations are run, at least in the software space. There are always "new" initiatives and mass movements, 180° turns, new billing platforms or HR software every month etc. It is to identify the faithful and true believers who tell the CEO that all this is a sign of genius. Also to identify those who can lie best and are therefore promoted. And just like in corporations pointing it out is flagged here.
    - jongjong 2y ago
      Yep I can definitely sense this. It's not ambiguous anymore. Also, a lot of corporate employees I spoke/chat with tend to portray their situation as being paid big salaries just to suffer by playing this game. As if their suffering creates any value for society. It's a twisted social contract. I'm sure it's harmful mentally. Imagine this is the best way to make money nowadays; what will the next generation of elites look like after decades of abusing themselves mentally in this way? The future looks grim. Common sense has gone out the window. It already doesn't make sense to me why people with a lot of money would choose to shape society in this cynical way. What more could they want from society? They literally have the best it can offer and yet they approach life with with intense self-destructive cynicism. I understand why people are giving into conspiracy theories. The motivations of the elite don't add up unless you assume twisted hidden/secret elements. The rich, in all their abundance, seem to act like desperate people. The desperation to achieve specific goals doesn't mesh well with abundance. Abundance should mean stepping off the accelerator.
- yapyap 2y ago
  I mean on the big scale, yes of course. Why would the ones in power organize themself out of the equation. But it started as a good willed thing of course. I think it’s important to have a distinction between the concept and the organized bit
bayarearefugee 2y ago
Job hires should be done strictly on merit. Like for example, if you're a drunkard weekend network news talking head domestic abuser this obviously qualifies you to run the world's largest military and the largest single organization that is part of the US government. Or if you've somehow managed to make decisions about your own health that led to having part of your brain eaten by a pork tapeworm in AD 2010 this clearly qualifies you to be responsible for the health initiatives of an entire nation. Or if you've killed a homeless black person on the subway this obviously qualifies you as the sort of "move fast and break things" go-getter needed at a venture capital firm. C'mon guys this is pretty common sense stuff.
- hyperdunc 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - api 2y ago
    So we should put believers in obviously crackpot theories in charge of physics departments? Would that re-ignite progress in physics? The current system has a lot of problems, but it can get much worse. We could end up with everything that's wrong with the current system plus more acceptance of crackpot bullshit. One of the key problems with populism is that while discontent with the establishment is often justified, populists overestimate how easy things are to fix and lack the expertise to judge alternatives. If you look around the world at revolutions, most of the time they result in things getting worse not better. It's much easier to break things than fix them.
    - hyperdunc 2y ago
      You're assuming it's possible to incrementally improve the situation, but maybe a "crackpot" is the best we can manage. If we could put someone truly, brilliantly competent and uncaptured in charge it would have happened already. Sometimes things need to get worse before they can be improved.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > So we should put believers in obviously crackpot theories in charge of physics departments? Quantum mechanics didn't really gain ascendancy until the old guard of physicists died off. There are examples in every field. Like hand washing for surgeons. Like digital cameras vs film. Like personal computers vs mainframes. Automobiles vs horses. Democracy vs monarchy. Aircraft carriers vs battleships. I don't know much about RFK. But disruption now and then in conventional ways of doing things is often for the better.
yapyap 2y ago
they never cared, it’s just that one extra step to suck up to the current leader
mc32 2y ago
You should have never had them in the first place. Hire fairly. Avoid [bigoted] bias in your hiring. That you had to advertise you did that meant you were not doing it in the first place. Meaning you were not treating equally and fairly. Lots of these corporate efforts, whatever they are, are a money printer for organizations “helping” including those proposing streamlining, time management, equity, X analysis, etc. whether delivered by the big5, individuals or any other entity, they are money pits that make management feel good: they’re doing something.
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
  But everyone can have biases even if they don’t think they do. So having some law to make you check your hiring practises is reasonable. But American businesses really over shot. And the correction will overshoot in the other direction.
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    >But American businesses really over shot. Did they though? There was a race to declare DEI-friendliness in the wake of Floyd, but I wonder how much was actually done and how impactful it was at most of these companies?
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      america is black&white - there is just never gray. affirmative action, dei… all these programs come from “a good place” so-to-speak but america is not capable of making a sensible policy. blame the two-party system who knows nothing more than to kill whatever policies other side puts in place. so each side goes overboard as it knows every policy has a shelf-life. some longer than others but eventually they all die. and to answer your question, I think these policies were supposed to be impactful for us as society more so than for companies…
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        What government policies compelled companies to create DEI programs?
guywithahat 2y ago
I mean this seems objectively good. All of the early issues with OpenAI were the AI refusing to respond to a prompt for political reasons. Generic models should be as politically neutral as possible.
- crummy 2y ago
  What does "politically neutral" mean? I see a roughly equal amount of pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine content on my Facebook lately, is that what you mean?
  - jimjimjim 2y ago
    It is truly sad that a stance on vaccines is somehow a political position. Fast-forward to 2030s where flat vs sphere is determined by an election.
  - guywithahat 2y ago
    It generally means unopinionated. You should be able to access all the research on vaccines that exists and draw your own opinions. At some point, there is a gray area where opinions and facts are hard to differentiate, but we haven’t reached it yet. We’re still at a stage where ChatGPT won’t answer questions if they’re critical of unions (or at least that was the case, I haven’t checked recently).
    - msy 2y ago
      Oddly enough if you access & summarise all the research on vaccines you're going to appear pro-vaccine.
      - guywithahat 2y ago
        Right, that's the goal. If you're right, our collection of knowledge will defend you. There's no need to fill it with fake info or hide legitimate research.
    - crummy 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mmooss 2y ago
There's a simple mathematical or logical concept that solves the problem: For absolute value of differences between X and Y, there is no difference between an advantage or a disadvantage. The formula for people who care about 'liberty and justice for all' is to say, 'we agree about eliminating racial or other biases in hiring and promotion' and then also identify and eliminate programs and processes biased in favor of, e.g., white males (the bias varies by situation, of course, but generally - almost by definition - favors the status quo). For example, in college admissions eliminate legacies, wealthy donor's kids, and other things are biased toward white men and women. And then in OpenAI hiring, look beyond elite universities that have biased results, and beyond personal networks that are biased. In internal hiring and programs, eliminate or change those that advantage any groups, not just those that advantage vulnerable groups. Another way of saying the same thing is that the standard hiring practices are DEI / affirmative action for the status quo (usually white males, possibly Asian males in SV) - that's what they always have been. I'm serious. We can all then agree: Eliminate affirmative action and DEI for all. Could civil rights advocates use anti-DEI laws to sue on behalf of vulnerable minorities, saying that hiring practices are DEI for the status quo? Or imagine Congress passing a law requiring merit-based advancement; imagine how that could be used to provide true 'liberty and justice for all.' (I don't know how that would work practically - how it's defined, how enforced, etc. Maybe you just have to quantitatively prove bias.)
- TinkersW 2y ago
  Your justification for discrimination against white guys is that a very tiny percent of them are legacy admissions and/or from wealthy families? You know the rest of them are not benefiting from that in the slightest? Actually they are probably hurt by it under the current DIE platforms. I agree that it would be great if hiring wasn't so focused on a small group of schools(ie excuses to hire people just like yourself). If DIE is replaced it needs to be with a system based on family income not skin color etc.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    No, I think they meant that removing legacy admissions will result in fewer white guys getting admitted, but that’s ok.
dpedu 2y ago
DEI was never really a genuine endeavor, or it would not be rolled back so quickly by major corporations. If DEI was truly and measurably beneficial to the company, it would not be rolled back so quickly.
- cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  Just wait until the next presidential elections in US and see how quickly all of those companies are going to get those pages back again.
  - wand3r 2y ago
    Why? The Democrats are on track to not see the inside of the executive office for the next 12 years. If the Trump term is moderately popular and he anoints a successor like Vance, it will be pretty unlikely the Democrats will win for 12 years. Democrats are really unmoored here and they have an insanely weak platform. I also generally think DEI, race based stack ranking and identity politics are widely unpopular. So I don't think you will see these pages come back broadly.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      It would be historically extremely aberrational for this to materialize.
      - artificialLimbs 2y ago
        The current administration's approval rating and actions are already extremely aberrational.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Not really, most administrations have a bump out of the gate when they can make cheap talk and the consequences haven't yet come to fruition.
poszlem 2y ago
They should have never had them in the first place. I have been a strong critic of wokeness, DEI, and all that nonsense. Yet, it is mind-blowing and eye-opening to see how quickly these companies can bend to the will of a powerful autocrat. It’s no longer a mystery to me why Hugo Boss would make uniforms for the Wehrmacht, and I can now fully imagine such companies willingly collaborating on "streamlining the delivery of people" to gas chambers, should the government ever asked for it.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  Most people will bend to the will of a powerful autocrat. Only a few people will actively resist when there is a risk of retribution.
delichon 2y ago
How do they write this story without mentioning the executive order? The head of each agency shall include in every contract or grant award: (A) A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and (B) A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws". https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi... The Stargate initiative will invest at least $500B. Whoever wouldn't scrub their website for a chunk of that is unusually principled.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jordanb 2y ago
  Stargate is a funding initiative by Sam Altman and principally backed by Softbank. It was announced at the white house to curry favor. Trump's stated commitment to the project is to wave environmental and possibly labor rules for all the data centers Altman wants to build.
- shikon7 2y ago
  As I read this, that executive order is only relevant if the DEI program would violate Federal anti-discrimination laws.
  - delichon 2y ago
    The current attorney general interprets most DEI activities just that way. It is her justification for attempting to eradicate it. It's also the premise of the order. The title starts with "Ending Illegal Discrimination".
    - malfist 2y ago
phantomathkg 2y ago
Many commenters in this thread talks about hiring, but the actual fact the page mentioned is not only about hiring, but DEI at a wider sense[0] > We believe the development of general-purpose artificial intelligence that benefits all of humanity must be carried out with a knowledge of and respect for the different perspectives and experiences that represent the full spectrum of humanity. > > Our investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion is ongoing, executed through a wide range of initiatives, owned by everyone across the company, and championed and supported by leadership. We take this work seriously and are committed to continuously improving our work in creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive organization. > > In addition to our dedication to creating an inclusive organization on the human level, OpenAI actively pursues technical work that is aimed at improving our understanding of, and ability to mitigate, harmful biases learned by AI systems, and supports conferences and groups involved in such work in the larger AI community. The text of course can be interpret in different way. But as an AI company that grok lots of raw data and generate response based on input, it is also VERY important for the AI models to be impartial and not biased toward anything. --- On hiring, that would be a completely different subjects. Should we strike for equal or fair? I don't think the answer should be 100% equal or 100% fairness. [0]https://web.archive.org/web/20240112174043/https://openai.com/commitment-to-dei https://web.archive.org/web/20240112174043/https://openai.co...
notepad0x90 2y ago
DEI doesn't affect who gets hired at all. If someone hires based on race, sex,etc... that's a blatant violation of the law. DEI just means making people who are not in the majority group of the country feel welcome and included in the organization. It would be ridiculous to hire or keep employed someone based on their biological characteristics instead of value to the business. What I suspect everyone already knows is that the anti-DEI initiative is designed to do the opposite of what DEI was intended to do, make those same people feel unwelcome in society altogether. Look at musk's track record and racism lawsuits against him. Personally, I found DEI stuff very boring and performative, I don't enjoy it at all. However, I would have to be naive and ignorant to pretend that it didn't actually make people feel welcome and included. Think about the society these people are trying to create. in 1-2 decades, minorities will become the majority, short of a genocide this trend cannot be reversed. Now imagine a country where the majority of the population is explicitly disenfranchised and excluded from government and any decent job. This really scary stuff guys, there are now several different paths the country is most likely to take that all lead to a social collapse and a civil war. Not a fun time to be young at all. I'm just going to assume anyone in a position of power (talking about CEO's and founders that lurk here!!) that isn't actively speaking out against the white supremacists in power is in bed with them. What's more confusing is musk claiming americans aren't smart enough for tech jobs and wants more H1B hires but they're against making those minorities (immigrants or not) welcome (which is all DEI does). I'll even go further than that. I expect everyone to be welcome in the workplace and government. if these white supremacists feel like white people are not being included then I really think they should implement affirmative action like policies benefiting white people that are legitimately being left out of schools,jobs,etc.. No problem with that at all. But please pay attention to this, they are not doing things to benefit white americans but rather to harm non-white americans. They are not acting to benefit their group but to harm other groups. There are plenty of impoverished mostly white places in America that need colleges, better schools, better infrastructure and social safety-nets. There are programs that pay people to immigrate to places like south dakota and the rust belt to be employed as doctors and even factory workers (the later, because of rampant illegal drug usage which could be solved by treatment focused approaches).
thefz 2y ago
I am torn about DEI. It's sort of the equivalent for "quote rosa" in Italy. On one hand, if I need to hire let's say an engineer, and if all the available engineers have specific homogeneous social characteristics, I still want the best engineer possible for the role. And it's up to the policymakers to understand why there is such low heterogeneity, and to address that, not me. On the other, how else can we guarantee that a minority still has equal representation and opportunities?
- bad_username 2y ago
  I think there is a fairly simple resolution. You can keep the standards strictly equal for all and hire by merit. But you can also, at the same time, help people with fewer opportunities to acquire the required skills and be prepared for that equal standard. IOW, level the playing field without rigging the game. Note I said "people with fewer opportunities", not "underrepresented groups". Underrepresentation is not a problem, it can have many benign causes. Unequal opportunity is.
- matsemann 2y ago
  But what if there are lots of diverse and good engineers, and somehow you always end up having to choose between a couple homogeneous ones? To me, that's what DEI in hiring tries to solve. It's not the FUD of "ohh, select the non-white". It's more of making sure one actually gets a representative collection to even choose between. Might be as simple as assessing how the interviews are conducted. Are they take-home tests someone with a small child will not be able to have time for? Is it unpaid internships only certain people can afford to do? Etc.
mancerayder 2y ago
DEI is toxic because it looks at racial and gender/identity bias as opposed to inequality as a class level. If you came from a disadvantaged background, we can quantify that with wealth, which we can actually examine. You can see someone's bank account, parental background, education, etc. If you choose. Or, if you are lazy, you can look at their race and use that as a basis for choosing winners and losers. That's toxic and would only lead to conflicts because a) you're going to get it wrong necessarily. Take for example a poor Ukrainian immigrant (white) versus a second generation Indian (of color, yet in the highest income group statistically, above whites). b) you create a suspicious environment where now there's a quiet suspicion that the person in the cubicle next to you got there not out of merit but for other reasons. The solution to all of the above, in universities and workplaces, is to get people ahead if they are bright and come from poor backgrounds. And do our best to eliminate friends and cousins and networking buddies from getting in for that reason. How many companies give referral bonuses and how often are Hackernews suggestions for job hunting simply "network with everyone". Think about it. Is racial and gender bias truly the issue here? And be suspicious of anyone telling you what your 'unconscious' tells you, unless you're in a therapy session. It's certainly not a computer, an employee handbook or an HR representative who has any right to comment on such a thing.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  DEI acknowledges that there is a historical legacy of disenfranchisement that produced certain inequalities at community-scale. For instance, discrimination against some groups was actually codified for the overwhelming majority of U.S. history and, beyond that, the biases, social networks, etc. that arose over that history didn't suddenly end when the laws changed. They exist today. So, DEI accounts for this reality and is not inherently toxic. It's just been characterized as such to sow division in a cynical, revisionist effort to re-frame attempts to rectify the legacy of discrimination as the actual discrimination.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    There are so many historic (and present) inequalities. DEI is toxic because it ignores most sources of inequality and favors a few groups of particular political importance to Democrats. In fact, sometimes DEI even favors groups who are on the advantaged side of inequality, like women in college, where they are nearly 60% of students.

107 points by gpi 2y ago

anonylizard 2y ago

[flagged]

moralestapia 2y ago

[flagged]

401Hqvn 2y ago

[flagged]

jongjong 2y ago
Yeah pretty much. It's seems like it was the same people who were behind ESG/DEI who are now most keen to dismantle it. The 360 degrees turnaround was very noticeable. It coincided with Elon's purchase of Twitter and the start of Israel/Palestine conflict which highlighted some deep divides. All these wars, conflicts and social movements feel orchestrated but obviously there is no full or genuine consensus so it's bound to keep falling apart in spectacular ways which finance people use to extract profits... The real winners here. It leaves the more ideologically minded feeling confused and betrayed... Then business and political leaders keep talking about rebuilding trust. Just as they keep constructing new schemes. But how do you rebuild trust without trustworthiness? Felt like massive PsyOps. I'm not surprised at all that Trump got elected. It's like the overarching social narrative had literally gone insane and we were expected to follow along? We're approaching a point where only insane people CAN keep up with the 'current thing' at this stage... Or you need a very short memory...
- ther11276 2y ago
  > we were expected to follow along That is how many US corporations are run, at least in the software space. There are always "new" initiatives and mass movements, 180° turns, new billing platforms or HR software every month etc. It is to identify the faithful and true believers who tell the CEO that all this is a sign of genius. Also to identify those who can lie best and are therefore promoted. And just like in corporations pointing it out is flagged here.
  - jongjong 2y ago
    Yep I can definitely sense this. It's not ambiguous anymore. Also, a lot of corporate employees I spoke/chat with tend to portray their situation as being paid big salaries just to suffer by playing this game. As if their suffering creates any value for society. It's a twisted social contract. I'm sure it's harmful mentally. Imagine this is the best way to make money nowadays; what will the next generation of elites look like after decades of abusing themselves mentally in this way? The future looks grim. Common sense has gone out the window. It already doesn't make sense to me why people with a lot of money would choose to shape society in this cynical way. What more could they want from society? They literally have the best it can offer and yet they approach life with with intense self-destructive cynicism. I understand why people are giving into conspiracy theories. The motivations of the elite don't add up unless you assume twisted hidden/secret elements. The rich, in all their abundance, seem to act like desperate people. The desperation to achieve specific goals doesn't mesh well with abundance. Abundance should mean stepping off the accelerator.
yapyap 2y ago
I mean on the big scale, yes of course. Why would the ones in power organize themself out of the equation. But it started as a good willed thing of course. I think it’s important to have a distinction between the concept and the organized bit

bayarearefugee 2y ago

Job hires should be done strictly on merit. Like for example, if you're a drunkard weekend network news talking head domestic abuser this obviously qualifies you to run the world's largest military and the largest single organization that is part of the US government. Or if you've somehow managed to make decisions about your own health that led to having part of your brain eaten by a pork tapeworm in AD 2010 this clearly qualifies you to be responsible for the health initiatives of an entire nation. Or if you've killed a homeless black person on the subway this obviously qualifies you as the sort of "move fast and break things" go-getter needed at a venture capital firm. C'mon guys this is pretty common sense stuff.

hyperdunc 2y ago
[flagged]
- api 2y ago
  So we should put believers in obviously crackpot theories in charge of physics departments? Would that re-ignite progress in physics? The current system has a lot of problems, but it can get much worse. We could end up with everything that's wrong with the current system plus more acceptance of crackpot bullshit. One of the key problems with populism is that while discontent with the establishment is often justified, populists overestimate how easy things are to fix and lack the expertise to judge alternatives. If you look around the world at revolutions, most of the time they result in things getting worse not better. It's much easier to break things than fix them.
  - hyperdunc 2y ago
    You're assuming it's possible to incrementally improve the situation, but maybe a "crackpot" is the best we can manage. If we could put someone truly, brilliantly competent and uncaptured in charge it would have happened already. Sometimes things need to get worse before they can be improved.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > So we should put believers in obviously crackpot theories in charge of physics departments? Quantum mechanics didn't really gain ascendancy until the old guard of physicists died off. There are examples in every field. Like hand washing for surgeons. Like digital cameras vs film. Like personal computers vs mainframes. Automobiles vs horses. Democracy vs monarchy. Aircraft carriers vs battleships. I don't know much about RFK. But disruption now and then in conventional ways of doing things is often for the better.

yapyap 2y ago

they never cared, it’s just that one extra step to suck up to the current leader

mc32 2y ago

You should have never had them in the first place. Hire fairly. Avoid [bigoted] bias in your hiring. That you had to advertise you did that meant you were not doing it in the first place. Meaning you were not treating equally and fairly. Lots of these corporate efforts, whatever they are, are a money printer for organizations “helping” including those proposing streamlining, time management, equity, X analysis, etc. whether delivered by the big5, individuals or any other entity, they are money pits that make management feel good: they’re doing something.

2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
But everyone can have biases even if they don’t think they do. So having some law to make you check your hiring practises is reasonable. But American businesses really over shot. And the correction will overshoot in the other direction.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >But American businesses really over shot. Did they though? There was a race to declare DEI-friendliness in the wake of Floyd, but I wonder how much was actually done and how impactful it was at most of these companies?
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    america is black&white - there is just never gray. affirmative action, dei… all these programs come from “a good place” so-to-speak but america is not capable of making a sensible policy. blame the two-party system who knows nothing more than to kill whatever policies other side puts in place. so each side goes overboard as it knows every policy has a shelf-life. some longer than others but eventually they all die. and to answer your question, I think these policies were supposed to be impactful for us as society more so than for companies…
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      What government policies compelled companies to create DEI programs?

guywithahat 2y ago

I mean this seems objectively good. All of the early issues with OpenAI were the AI refusing to respond to a prompt for political reasons. Generic models should be as politically neutral as possible.

crummy 2y ago
What does "politically neutral" mean? I see a roughly equal amount of pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine content on my Facebook lately, is that what you mean?
- jimjimjim 2y ago
  It is truly sad that a stance on vaccines is somehow a political position. Fast-forward to 2030s where flat vs sphere is determined by an election.
- guywithahat 2y ago
  It generally means unopinionated. You should be able to access all the research on vaccines that exists and draw your own opinions. At some point, there is a gray area where opinions and facts are hard to differentiate, but we haven’t reached it yet. We’re still at a stage where ChatGPT won’t answer questions if they’re critical of unions (or at least that was the case, I haven’t checked recently).
  - msy 2y ago
    Oddly enough if you access & summarise all the research on vaccines you're going to appear pro-vaccine.
    - guywithahat 2y ago
      Right, that's the goal. If you're right, our collection of knowledge will defend you. There's no need to fill it with fake info or hide legitimate research.
  - crummy 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mmooss 2y ago

There's a simple mathematical or logical concept that solves the problem: For absolute value of differences between X and Y, there is no difference between an advantage or a disadvantage. The formula for people who care about 'liberty and justice for all' is to say, 'we agree about eliminating racial or other biases in hiring and promotion' and then also identify and eliminate programs and processes biased in favor of, e.g., white males (the bias varies by situation, of course, but generally - almost by definition - favors the status quo). For example, in college admissions eliminate legacies, wealthy donor's kids, and other things are biased toward white men and women. And then in OpenAI hiring, look beyond elite universities that have biased results, and beyond personal networks that are biased. In internal hiring and programs, eliminate or change those that advantage any groups, not just those that advantage vulnerable groups. Another way of saying the same thing is that the standard hiring practices are DEI / affirmative action for the status quo (usually white males, possibly Asian males in SV) - that's what they always have been. I'm serious. We can all then agree: Eliminate affirmative action and DEI for all. Could civil rights advocates use anti-DEI laws to sue on behalf of vulnerable minorities, saying that hiring practices are DEI for the status quo? Or imagine Congress passing a law requiring merit-based advancement; imagine how that could be used to provide true 'liberty and justice for all.' (I don't know how that would work practically - how it's defined, how enforced, etc. Maybe you just have to quantitatively prove bias.)

TinkersW 2y ago
Your justification for discrimination against white guys is that a very tiny percent of them are legacy admissions and/or from wealthy families? You know the rest of them are not benefiting from that in the slightest? Actually they are probably hurt by it under the current DIE platforms. I agree that it would be great if hiring wasn't so focused on a small group of schools(ie excuses to hire people just like yourself). If DIE is replaced it needs to be with a system based on family income not skin color etc.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  No, I think they meant that removing legacy admissions will result in fewer white guys getting admitted, but that’s ok.

dpedu 2y ago

DEI was never really a genuine endeavor, or it would not be rolled back so quickly by major corporations. If DEI was truly and measurably beneficial to the company, it would not be rolled back so quickly.

cynicalsecurity 2y ago
Just wait until the next presidential elections in US and see how quickly all of those companies are going to get those pages back again.
- wand3r 2y ago
  Why? The Democrats are on track to not see the inside of the executive office for the next 12 years. If the Trump term is moderately popular and he anoints a successor like Vance, it will be pretty unlikely the Democrats will win for 12 years. Democrats are really unmoored here and they have an insanely weak platform. I also generally think DEI, race based stack ranking and identity politics are widely unpopular. So I don't think you will see these pages come back broadly.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    It would be historically extremely aberrational for this to materialize.
    - artificialLimbs 2y ago
      The current administration's approval rating and actions are already extremely aberrational.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Not really, most administrations have a bump out of the gate when they can make cheap talk and the consequences haven't yet come to fruition.

poszlem 2y ago

They should have never had them in the first place. I have been a strong critic of wokeness, DEI, and all that nonsense. Yet, it is mind-blowing and eye-opening to see how quickly these companies can bend to the will of a powerful autocrat. It’s no longer a mystery to me why Hugo Boss would make uniforms for the Wehrmacht, and I can now fully imagine such companies willingly collaborating on "streamlining the delivery of people" to gas chambers, should the government ever asked for it.

rqtwteye 2y ago
Most people will bend to the will of a powerful autocrat. Only a few people will actively resist when there is a risk of retribution.

delichon 2y ago

How do they write this story without mentioning the executive order? The head of each agency shall include in every contract or grant award: (A) A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and (B) A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws". https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi... The Stargate initiative will invest at least $500B. Whoever wouldn't scrub their website for a chunk of that is unusually principled.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jordanb 2y ago
Stargate is a funding initiative by Sam Altman and principally backed by Softbank. It was announced at the white house to curry favor. Trump's stated commitment to the project is to wave environmental and possibly labor rules for all the data centers Altman wants to build.
shikon7 2y ago
As I read this, that executive order is only relevant if the DEI program would violate Federal anti-discrimination laws.
- delichon 2y ago
  The current attorney general interprets most DEI activities just that way. It is her justification for attempting to eradicate it. It's also the premise of the order. The title starts with "Ending Illegal Discrimination".
  - malfist 2y ago

phantomathkg 2y ago

Many commenters in this thread talks about hiring, but the actual fact the page mentioned is not only about hiring, but DEI at a wider sense[0] > We believe the development of general-purpose artificial intelligence that benefits all of humanity must be carried out with a knowledge of and respect for the different perspectives and experiences that represent the full spectrum of humanity. > > Our investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion is ongoing, executed through a wide range of initiatives, owned by everyone across the company, and championed and supported by leadership. We take this work seriously and are committed to continuously improving our work in creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive organization. > > In addition to our dedication to creating an inclusive organization on the human level, OpenAI actively pursues technical work that is aimed at improving our understanding of, and ability to mitigate, harmful biases learned by AI systems, and supports conferences and groups involved in such work in the larger AI community. The text of course can be interpret in different way. But as an AI company that grok lots of raw data and generate response based on input, it is also VERY important for the AI models to be impartial and not biased toward anything. --- On hiring, that would be a completely different subjects. Should we strike for equal or fair? I don't think the answer should be 100% equal or 100% fairness. [0]https://web.archive.org/web/20240112174043/https://openai.com/commitment-to-dei https://web.archive.org/web/20240112174043/https://openai.co...

notepad0x90 2y ago

DEI doesn't affect who gets hired at all. If someone hires based on race, sex,etc... that's a blatant violation of the law. DEI just means making people who are not in the majority group of the country feel welcome and included in the organization. It would be ridiculous to hire or keep employed someone based on their biological characteristics instead of value to the business. What I suspect everyone already knows is that the anti-DEI initiative is designed to do the opposite of what DEI was intended to do, make those same people feel unwelcome in society altogether. Look at musk's track record and racism lawsuits against him. Personally, I found DEI stuff very boring and performative, I don't enjoy it at all. However, I would have to be naive and ignorant to pretend that it didn't actually make people feel welcome and included. Think about the society these people are trying to create. in 1-2 decades, minorities will become the majority, short of a genocide this trend cannot be reversed. Now imagine a country where the majority of the population is explicitly disenfranchised and excluded from government and any decent job. This really scary stuff guys, there are now several different paths the country is most likely to take that all lead to a social collapse and a civil war. Not a fun time to be young at all. I'm just going to assume anyone in a position of power (talking about CEO's and founders that lurk here!!) that isn't actively speaking out against the white supremacists in power is in bed with them. What's more confusing is musk claiming americans aren't smart enough for tech jobs and wants more H1B hires but they're against making those minorities (immigrants or not) welcome (which is all DEI does). I'll even go further than that. I expect everyone to be welcome in the workplace and government. if these white supremacists feel like white people are not being included then I really think they should implement affirmative action like policies benefiting white people that are legitimately being left out of schools,jobs,etc.. No problem with that at all. But please pay attention to this, they are not doing things to benefit white americans but rather to harm non-white americans. They are not acting to benefit their group but to harm other groups. There are plenty of impoverished mostly white places in America that need colleges, better schools, better infrastructure and social safety-nets. There are programs that pay people to immigrate to places like south dakota and the rust belt to be employed as doctors and even factory workers (the later, because of rampant illegal drug usage which could be solved by treatment focused approaches).

thefz 2y ago

I am torn about DEI. It's sort of the equivalent for "quote rosa" in Italy. On one hand, if I need to hire let's say an engineer, and if all the available engineers have specific homogeneous social characteristics, I still want the best engineer possible for the role. And it's up to the policymakers to understand why there is such low heterogeneity, and to address that, not me. On the other, how else can we guarantee that a minority still has equal representation and opportunities?

bad_username 2y ago
I think there is a fairly simple resolution. You can keep the standards strictly equal for all and hire by merit. But you can also, at the same time, help people with fewer opportunities to acquire the required skills and be prepared for that equal standard. IOW, level the playing field without rigging the game. Note I said "people with fewer opportunities", not "underrepresented groups". Underrepresentation is not a problem, it can have many benign causes. Unequal opportunity is.
matsemann 2y ago
But what if there are lots of diverse and good engineers, and somehow you always end up having to choose between a couple homogeneous ones? To me, that's what DEI in hiring tries to solve. It's not the FUD of "ohh, select the non-white". It's more of making sure one actually gets a representative collection to even choose between. Might be as simple as assessing how the interviews are conducted. Are they take-home tests someone with a small child will not be able to have time for? Is it unpaid internships only certain people can afford to do? Etc.

mancerayder 2y ago

DEI is toxic because it looks at racial and gender/identity bias as opposed to inequality as a class level. If you came from a disadvantaged background, we can quantify that with wealth, which we can actually examine. You can see someone's bank account, parental background, education, etc. If you choose. Or, if you are lazy, you can look at their race and use that as a basis for choosing winners and losers. That's toxic and would only lead to conflicts because a) you're going to get it wrong necessarily. Take for example a poor Ukrainian immigrant (white) versus a second generation Indian (of color, yet in the highest income group statistically, above whites). b) you create a suspicious environment where now there's a quiet suspicion that the person in the cubicle next to you got there not out of merit but for other reasons. The solution to all of the above, in universities and workplaces, is to get people ahead if they are bright and come from poor backgrounds. And do our best to eliminate friends and cousins and networking buddies from getting in for that reason. How many companies give referral bonuses and how often are Hackernews suggestions for job hunting simply "network with everyone". Think about it. Is racial and gender bias truly the issue here? And be suspicious of anyone telling you what your 'unconscious' tells you, unless you're in a therapy session. It's certainly not a computer, an employee handbook or an HR representative who has any right to comment on such a thing.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
DEI acknowledges that there is a historical legacy of disenfranchisement that produced certain inequalities at community-scale. For instance, discrimination against some groups was actually codified for the overwhelming majority of U.S. history and, beyond that, the biases, social networks, etc. that arose over that history didn't suddenly end when the laws changed. They exist today. So, DEI accounts for this reality and is not inherently toxic. It's just been characterized as such to sow division in a cynical, revisionist effort to re-frame attempts to rectify the legacy of discrimination as the actual discrimination.
- leereeves 2y ago
  There are so many historic (and present) inequalities. DEI is toxic because it ignores most sources of inequality and favors a few groups of particular political importance to Democrats. In fact, sometimes DEI even favors groups who are on the advantaged side of inequality, like women in college, where they are nearly 60% of students.