14 ms·

The AI items are concerning. The DEI stuff though is gone and isn’t coming back. The concept was well intentioned but, quite ironically, these programs turned

• RustySpottedCat 2y ago
  There was a zero chance the company with the best AI LLM models would not get involved in weaponization, willingly or not. DAI is going to be one of the first things the next administration brings back, mark my words. Saying it's discriminatory is like saying affirmative action is discriminatory
  • whimsicalism 2y ago
    my guess is any new administration would realize it’s a massive political loser. i’m personally in favor of some limited AA in unis, but if even black people are majority against AA when polled… it’s definitely not coming back. might be that this changes once minority groups realize how much of an impact it was actually having, i think a large segment of people convinced themselves that a lot more of these admissions were by pure merit than is supported by the data.
    • Aachen 2y ago
      What's an aa? I get American Airlines when I duck it and I know of libaa but that doesn't fit the context either
      • whimsicalism 2y ago
        affirmative action. you can also generally just copy and paste into chatgpt and it will be able to answer your question
        • Aachen 2y ago
          (And burn a tree in the process as compared to a human answer) Thanks for clarifying!
          • whimsicalism 2y ago
            a chatgpt query is like 10x a google query (before they added LLM summary), you’d have more impact cutting out meat or taking fewer flights
            • Aachen 2y ago
              > you’d have more impact cutting out meat or taking fewer flights Guess what! This and more... You're telling the wrong person to do good in the world xD Anyway, upvoted because you are of course right
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  • causality0 2y ago
    Affirmative action is discriminatory. It is literally discriminating between different people based on sex, race, religion, or gender identity. You can argue it's good discrimination, but it is by definition discrimination.
    • AlecSchueler 2y ago
      But its absence demonstrably leads to discrimination based on the same things through subconscious bias. At least with it in place you get fairer spread of people being affected.
      • raxxorraxor 2y ago
        If you want to discriminate for the greater good, you elevate yourself above others. The only thing you could do is to take a step back yourself instead of forcing others to do so. If you cannot restrict yourself to that, you are as bad as those that discriminate without further reflection.
        • AlecSchueler 2y ago
          If you don't "discriminate for the greater good" (your phrasing, not mine) and you are part of the dominant group who benefits from not doing so then you also elevate yourself above others. That is not a morally superior choice. Personally I do take that step back. I would consider myself a violent person if I did not. I look around and I see my peers choosing not to work towards dismantling the systems that privelege themselves and I consider their inaction a form of violence against people who are already struggling. I am not American so I can't speak for the culture there but in my society there is a general acceptance of using collective power to limit the violence of individuals, and even more so when there is such an evident power disparity.
          • raxxorraxor 2y ago
            > That is not a morally superior choice. No, it would not be morally superior and it is commendable if you do take a step back. But to remove discrimination you have to leave others to make their choice too. > I consider their inaction a form of violence against people who are already struggling. To help people in need, you do not have to put them in groups first. This grouping is already discrimination. I would say literally, but the term is a bit overused. But the good thing is that you never need discrimination to alleviate injustices. Any argument for social security policies and everything that remotely fits under that umbrella does not need discrimination. In fact it would work much better without it or using discrimination as a justification. It even undermines the argument for it.
  • TinkersW 2y ago
    California banned affirmative action in 1996 precisely because it is discriminatory. I can only hope the dems are smart enough to drop DEI for good, I don't think Trump is healthy for the US.
    • ThrowawayR2 2y ago
      A recent Gallup poll has reported that "...Support for a more moderate Democratic Party among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents has grown by 11 percentage points, to 45%, since 2021..." so the Democrats seem to be headed in that direction. https://news.gallup.com/poll/656636/democrats-favor-party-moderation-past.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/656636/democrats-favor-party-mo...
  • xiphias2 2y ago
    DEI got an extreme level of support from NGOs even while Trump was the president that they won't have at the next election. I hope they can renew themselves. The good news on the left side though that I don't think the next candidate could be worse than Kamala Harris.
• aprilthird2021 2y ago
  They are also now illegal by executive order which is the main reason companies are getting rid of them. I agree with you they were biased but companies don't care about that
  • kevingadd 2y ago
    Executive orders aren't laws
  • Terr_ 2y ago
    > illegal by executive order I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here, but even if so: This phrasing is too close to just spreading a pro-Trump lie outright. Better to say that companies are avoiding these policies because a wannabe dictator has thrown a hissy fit about them while CCing everyone on the email.
    • aisenik 2y ago
      It's analogous to "working toward the führer" and, like most historical content about the rise of the Nazis, the parallels with today's USA are haunting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw#%22Working_Towards_the_F%C3%BChrer%22_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw#%22Working_Towards...
  • gcr 2y ago
    In what way are they illegal? The EOs only apply to federal agencies and their immediate subcontractors. Wouldn’t interpreting the EO as setting limits on the private sector be government overreach?
    • aprilthird2021 2y ago
      From reading this: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/maryland-ag-dei-president-trump-executive-order/ https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/maryland-ag-dei-presi... It seems like this part is the relevant part: > [The executive order] also instructs the U.S. attorney general to create a plan that would deter the private sector from continuing DEI programs. So while it is not technically illegal yet, seems like they are getting ahead of that issue before it may arise based on pretty strong signaling that it will
• ASinclair 2y ago
  > The concept was well intentioned but, quite ironically, these programs turned into a hub of biased discriminatory behavior and it was becoming increasingly hard to paint them as anything else. I think the programs basically did nothing. They were ineffective. Yet, that made a lot of people really angry.
  • zombiwoof 2y ago
    I’d argue they had reverse intentions in that it over fit on discriminatory hiring (against white men)
    • ASinclair 2y ago
      More like against Chinese and Indian men. That’s where the hiring will go now that these programs are gone.
    • AlecSchueler 2y ago
      What woord you base that argument on?
• CharlieDigital 2y ago
  > these programs turned into a hub of biased discriminatory behavior Professional sports went through a "DEI" phase. Despite some rough patches, I'd say that it worked out for the better as a whole if you look at it in retrospect. Similarly, individual companies may have fumbled DEI initiatives, but years on, I think it will have had a (small) positive impact.
  • bluedevil2k 2y ago
    How does professional sports go through a DEI phase?? Professional sports are one of the few true meritocracies in the world, where the best players, no matter their race, religion or gender, will play.
    • Iulioh 2y ago
      Probably including women in the presentation of the sports, like in the media and reporting side
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      Unless they kneel for the anthem, of course.
      • bluedevil2k 2y ago
        I’m guessing you’re referring to Colin Kaepernick? The dude went 2-14 his last year in the NFL! 2-14!!! That fact always seems to be left out by people claiming “racism”. The fact that he didn’t get another job is because sports is a meritocracy and he sucked, not because of his race or any DEI issue.
    • edmundsauto 2y ago
      I have a more nuanced take on whether professional sports are actually a meritocracy. It depends on the level at which you look. Yes, in any given event it’s generally fair to say the rules are equitable. However, look at golf - we can either accept white people have some genetic advantage, or that access is not equal and the best talent never got a chance to develop. This could be extended to other leagues as well. Do you see it differently?
• sympil 2y ago
  How is DEI discriminatory? Do you know of studies that have statistics to back up the claim?
  • whimsicalism 2y ago
    its preferential hiring or at minimum recruiting/sourcing on the basis of race, its discriminatory by definition
    • sympil 2y ago
      DEI is not about preferential hiring. It’s the opposite. It’s about broadening the perspectives so that one group that has enjoyed historical preferential hiring no longer gets preferential treatment.
      • whimsicalism 2y ago
        is affirmative action preferential? idk what to tell you, the way it plays out in practice is preferential on the basis of race. maybe that’s okay, but that is absolutely what it means
        • sympil 2y ago
          White men in the U.S. have a hard time coming to grips with living in a society where women have sexual autonomy and where they are subjected to genuine competition for jobs. Every POC hire over a white man must be becuase of DEI!
          • whimsicalism 2y ago
            not sure who you are talking to, but it certainly isn’t stuff in my comment. have a good one, maybe spend a little less time on the news
            • sympil 2y ago
• pitched 2y ago
  DEI did feel a lot like paying off debt by getting a new credit card. Equal competition doesn’t mean equal footing though. We will eventually need something to replace it and I hope that doesn’t go worse.
  • Aachen 2y ago
    Does it? My "I just want the best for everyone" side likes to think being consciously and explicitly open to all candidates, having a women's day on stereotypical men's jobs, quotas, etc., makes things better because you get more perspectives in your org. Your business/government is more likely to cater to the whole population if it's lead by a reflection of the whole population and all that. But I don't actually know if anyone ran the numbers on that. You seem to suggest it's like taking on debt — is it? I'd be interested. As I do want the best for everyone, if my intuition is wrong then that's also useful to know about and adjust my opinion on
    • ivewonyoung 2y ago
      A good read https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-faas-hiring https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-fa...
      • Aachen 2y ago
        Article's title: "The Full Story of the FAA's Hiring Scandal" Saving others a click: it's an n=1
        • ivewonyoung 2y ago
          Huh, how is it an n=1 ? It affected a lot of folks that they're trying to gather in a class action.
          • Aachen 2y ago
            One plane crash is also n=1 for whether the maintenance interval of the element that failed should increase, not n=num_victims, since there's only one aircraft that failed after all. Here, it's one organisation I'm not asking for data points to do a study into individual companies applying their policies and compiling anecdotal results to do statistical or qualitative tests on all by myself in spare time when there's people being paid to do this properly. I was wondering if someone knew if the evidence has already been compiled and we know the overall effect, rather than stories which are surely plenty on both sides (assuming we agree that racism and other biases are not legitimate selection reasons, thus there being a reason to push against them). The question is: where is the balance? What policy creates the greatest median happiness in the population, all else being equal? This isn't trivial to determine, I can't do that by myself in an afternoon based on a few news reports of individual cases
• Aurornis 2y ago
  > these programs turned into a hub of biased discriminatory behavior and it was becoming increasingly hard to paint them as anything else The last corporate DEI initiative I was pulled into was so blatantly discriminatory that many of us were scrambling to remove ourselves from hiring roles as quickly as possible. One of the few times I’ve been speechless in a meeting was when someone proudly told us they had just rejected a perfect candidate for the role because they were a man and not a minority, and we “had enough of those”. This was followed by a debate about whether Asians qualified as a minority in the context of a tech company. I started working on my exit from that company as quickly as possible. These were ex-FAANG executives but they had been out of FAANG long enough that they likely came up with these ideas on their own, I think. To be honest, I’ve been very hesitant to even talk about that situation in person because it’s such a minefield.