Google Cancels AI Ethics Board In Response To Outcry (vox.com) 220
After facing criticism for including two controversial members in its AI ethics board, Google told Vox that it's pulling the plug on the board altogether. "The inclusion of drone company CEO Dyan Gibbens reopened old divisions in the company over the use of the company's AI for military applications," reports Vox. But it's Heritage Foundation president Kay Coles James who proved most controversial due to her company's hard line stance on immigration and LGBTQ rights. Thousands of Google employees signed a petition earlier this week calling for her removal. From the report: The board survived for barely more than one week. Founded to guide "responsible development of AI" at Google, it would have had eight members and met four times over the course of 2019 to consider concerns about Google's AI program. Those concerns include how AI can enable authoritarian states, how AI algorithms produce disparate outcomes, whether to work on military applications of AI, and more. But it ran into problems from the start.
Board member Alessandro Acquisti resigned. Another member, Joanna Bryson, defending her decision not to resign, claimed of James, "Believe it or not, I know worse about one of the other people." Other board members found themselves swamped with demands that they justify their decision to remain on the board. The panel was supposed to add outside perspectives to ongoing AI ethics work by Google engineers, all of which will continue. Hopefully, the cancellation of the board doesn't represent a retreat from Google's AI ethics work, but a chance to consider how to more constructively engage outside stakeholders. Here is Google's statement on the matter: "It's become clear that in the current environment, ATEAC can't function as we wanted. So we're ending the council and going back to the drawing board. We'll continue to be responsible in our work on the important issues that AI raises, and will find different ways of getting outside opinions on these topics."
Board member Alessandro Acquisti resigned. Another member, Joanna Bryson, defending her decision not to resign, claimed of James, "Believe it or not, I know worse about one of the other people." Other board members found themselves swamped with demands that they justify their decision to remain on the board. The panel was supposed to add outside perspectives to ongoing AI ethics work by Google engineers, all of which will continue. Hopefully, the cancellation of the board doesn't represent a retreat from Google's AI ethics work, but a chance to consider how to more constructively engage outside stakeholders. Here is Google's statement on the matter: "It's become clear that in the current environment, ATEAC can't function as we wanted. So we're ending the council and going back to the drawing board. We'll continue to be responsible in our work on the important issues that AI raises, and will find different ways of getting outside opinions on these topics."
Well that was predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another large group folds just because some tiny mob of people are angry.
People should really start taking up the examples of Virginian Democrats and stand fast - if Democrats can hold onto power after raping women and wearing a Klan hood, then it sure seems like Google should be able to have a panel with whoever the hell they like and ignore the haters.
Re:Well that was predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another large group folds just because some tiny mob of people are angry.
Every time they cave in, they encourage even more mobs, and more manufactured outrage. Decision making becomes ever more dysfunctional, and fixing problems ever more difficult. For an example of what this can lead to, look at France.
Re:Well that was predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect in this case Google is quite happy to have an excuse not to have an ethics board.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, perhaps they just decided hat the "mob" was right and they had made a bad decision, and fixed it.
Carrying on with your plan even after it becomes obvious that it's fundamentally flawed is silly. Not listening to people because they disagree with you or because you already made a decision is also pretty dumb, e.g. see Teresa May.
In other words, let's pretend, shall we (Score:2, Insightful)
An angry mob of several thousand people (at a company that employs about 100k) shut down AI Ethics meeting.
But let's pretend "it's because 'mob was right'", or in other words #nothinghappened shall we?
Re: (Score:2)
'Unsuitable.'
We need to explore that point further.
Re:In other words, let's pretend, shall we (Score:5, Interesting)
'Unsuitable.'
We need to explore that point further.
I thought Ami was perfectly clear, in this context 'Unsuitable' means do not fully align with his SJW values and/or not sufficiently woke.
Re:In other words, let's pretend, shall we (Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire point of panels is to have people with diverging views talk about a subject in a civil manner.
By eliminating people from a panel they disagree with, those whiners are tacitly admitting they can't refute the views or ideas of the people they disagree with.
What you wind up is a panel full of agreement, which is worthless.
Re: In other words, let's pretend, shall we (Idioc (Score:4, Insightful)
They absolutely did not refute those views. They shut down all discussions before views on AI ethics were ever discussed.
You don't even know what their views were, because they literally were not allowed to speak them. You might have found that the person you hate would have had the same views as you on the dangers or benefits of AI. We'll never know because your arbitrary purity test and extremism once again damaged civil society through censorship and deplatforming.
You are breathtakingly stupid, and still dishonest as always.
Re: (Score:2)
"Except that refuting those views is precisely what they did"
You need to learn the difference between the words "refute" and "silence". You can't refute a person's ideas by silencing them. Such a tactic is blatantly authoritarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, they have been silenced? Their web site was taken down, they have been banned from promoting their policies, no-one can listen to them any more?
You need to learn the difference between not being invited to something and being silenced.
Re:In other words, let's pretend, shall we (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, you can't have an ethics council made up of people whose job it is to promote unethical policies. That with be an unethics council.
So what do you think is going to happen? That the kook from the Heritage Foundation is going to convince this ethics panel to make hunter-killer drones to eliminate gay people or people of differing skin pigmentation or something?
Backed by the manufacturer of the drones?
This might come as a hard pill to swallow, but if you must prevent your ideas being exposed to other people's ideas, your ideas are fatally weak.
I know that in a long career, I have taken much insight from people who have very different politics than mine, and perhaps I have given them insight as well.
Re: (Score:3)
I just want to interject here that conservatives have been complaining for the last 2 decades that the UN isn't a legitimate organization, and have been citing china being on the human rights council as proof of it. Bush full on suggested leaving and making our own UN, then appointed John Bolton to spit in the face of the world.
Don't pretend one side owns this sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If the council member's ethics are irrelevant to the decisions made by the council, then why appoint these people in the first place? Sling the janitor a few bucks to tell you right from wrong.
Clearly the ethics of the people on the council are going to shape the decisions of the council. That's extremely obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not "hard to swallow", it's provably false. Heritage Foundation is known worldwide for being a corrupt, pro-business, anti-human organization. As was mentioned earlier upthread, it's parallel to having a convicted child molester watch your children for a week while you're away. You don't get to act surprised that your rules got violated when the person makes you aware beforehand they fully intend to violate them.
They must be incredibly powerful this Heritage foundation, like an evil villain in a Comic book. You have one kook, who all of the brave and intrepid socially concious and saitly people on the board are not capable of withstanding.
So what does she do, hold a gun on them and make them agree to torture little children or something?
Pity that the far left is so easily beaten. So weak and fragile. Not capable of withstanding any opinion other than their own. You're more like the far right than you would ev
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to interject here that conservatives have been complaining for the last 2 decades that the UN isn't a legitimate organization, and have been citing china being on the human rights council as proof of it. Bush full on suggested leaving and making our own UN, then appointed John Bolton to spit in the face of the world.
Don't pretend one side owns this sort of thing.
I've often said that the far right is in so many ways, identical to the far left. Different words, but the same attitude toward personal freedom and a fervent desire to have only one allowable opinion.
Not that any on either side would accept that. That's because they are far right and far left. One coin.
Just so happens that in this case, Google employees and other members of this board are not strong enough to have anything but far left thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
If the council member's ethics are irrelevant to the decisions made by the council, then why appoint these people in the first place? Sling the janitor a few bucks to tell you right from wrong.
Clearly the ethics of the people on the council are going to shape the decisions of the council. That's extremely obvious.
I've been involved in many councils and boards. There has been a wide range of opinions, and there has been people specifically selected to represent opposing viewpoints. Now why on earth would we do something that you believe is simply wrong?
Because we were trying to get something done, and understand that not only can opposing views be interesting, but that valuable insights and often compromises can be made that serve everyone..
Your approval of dissolving a council simply because some of the members
Re: (Score:2)
If the council member's ethics are irrelevant to the decisions made by the council, then why appoint these people in the first place? Sling the janitor a few bucks to tell you right from wrong.
Clearly the ethics of the people on the council are going to shape the decisions of the council. That's extremely obvious.
You do know that when a final report is made, there must be a consensus on the contents. There can be minority notations, but anything I've been on starts with presentation of ideas, discussions, often subgroups, then reporting back, more discussions, the a final report. Inasmuch as the Heritage Foundation will almost certainly be in a minority, perhaps not getting any serious inclusion in the report.
Also, the outrage of the Google employees is due to the HF's position on LGBT. Which unless you see every
Re:In other words, let's pretend, shall we (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider LGBTQ rights. Off the top my head, there's no gay marriage in China (1 billion people), India (1 billion people), Islam (1.5 billion people) or Catholicism (1 billion people). There's not likely to be much overlap in those groups, so right there is 4.5 billion people, more than half the world's population, for whom a statement like "a man cannot marry another man" is uncontroversial and obvious.
Maybe the ethics of the Bay area aren't exactly universal, and they could be more tolerant of diverse opinions? Particularly when those diverse opinions represent the majority of the world?
Re: (Score:2)
Religious people have a wonderful ability to interpret their stated religion according to their own values. For example, The majority of the citizens of France in 2013 were Catholic; that's the year France legally recognized same sex marriage. Opinion polls in India put the issue at a three way tie, yes/no/don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
India apparently has a pretty bewildering set of laws about marriage. In all but one state you can be married according to one of several different religious traditions, and none of these actually define marriage as between a man and a woman. The religious diversity in India might contribute to a lot of eye rolling and "whatever" as popular positions on such things.
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't RTFA I see.
They set up am AI ethics council. Some people write emails pointing out that some of the people on the council were unsuitable. Google realized they screwed up and abandoned the idea.
I see that you adhere to the one opinion only philosophy.
That always works out so good. Exposure to many opinions is never a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
How the fuck do you get from "someone made a persuasive argument in an email" to "you adhere to the one opinion philosophy"?
This is the kind of thing that chills free speech. Any criticism is attacked not on its merits, but merely on the basis of criticism being some kind of censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
How the fuck do you get from "someone made a persuasive argument in an email" to "you adhere to the one opinion philosophy"?
This is the kind of thing that chills free speech. Any criticism is attacked not on its merits, but merely on the basis of criticism being some kind of censorship.
I think that the Google employees have succeeded in eliminating any free speech around this AI ethics. And apparently, the critical qualification is LGBT support. Which is a good thing in general, but destroying an attempt to have a very important meeting is some funny kind of victory. Okay, let us turn this around. Should anyone not supportive of Trans rights be excluded from society, not allowed to express themselves. Perhaps sent to live under a bridge like registered sex offenders?
Keeping in mind -
Re:Well that was predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, perhaps they just decided hat the "mob" was right and they had made a bad decision, and fixed it.
Carrying on with your plan even after it becomes obvious that it's fundamentally flawed is silly. Not listening to people because they disagree with you or because you already made a decision is also pretty dumb, e.g. see Teresa May.
It is pretty obvious that the employees have demanded that there is one opinion only, and that if you do not put people of that far left wing opinion, you shall not pass muster.
But that isn't a committee. There isn't much point of having a committee at all if all must march in lockstep. Just get one person who has the opinion that is allowed, and have them write a manifesto.
One of the problems with both the far right and far left is their insistence on purity of politics. But collective pants-shitting because someone from the heritage foundation is on the panel, and especially from a drone mfgr, is simply telling the world that anyone that the mob will accept and any conclusions or recommendations must be decided before any meetings.
Which of course, brings me back to the point that no committee is needed. Just get a far left person to write something condemning whatever they feel needs condemned, name a few names that they want fired from their jobs, and tidy up that little corner of the world. Then they can pat themselves on the back, and move on to the next thing they want to cry about.
p.s. I'm just hoping that #metoo doesn't find out about how Annie Smith and I kissed on the playground when we were in third grade. It was her idea, but I hear regret sexual assault is promoted these days. #keepingalowprofile
Re: (Score:2)
p.s. I'm just hoping that #metoo doesn't find out about how Annie Smith and I kissed on the playground when we were in third grade. It was her idea, but I hear regret sexual assault is promoted these days. #keepingalowprofile
She was underage you pedophile. She couldn't consent. You sexually assaulted her!
Time to be ostracized as a modern witch regardless of context.
Indeed! There was actually a case of 2 4 year olds around here where a little boy and little girl were playing "doctor", and the parents of the girl called the police. The criminal case was eventually dropped because it was apparently consensual. I think the parents were sent to counseling. So fortunately we didn't have a 4 year old on the Sexual Offenders list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He got power way after those incidents and his handlers knew about it long ago.
Is he a racist bag of dicks? Maybe. Some people change, some don't. Politicians tend to have little remorse.
But there is a clear cause and effect from when he started talking publicly about "post-birth abortions" happening to harvest tissue from infants to when they released this file to take him out.
Very interesting that he survived it - now he has more power and his handlers have far less.
No, this is what should have happened. (Score:2)
That Google also has a leadership role in the industry means that its decision will shape its future development; what they invest in, what
Re: (Score:2)
There actions have been widely condemned and are unlikely to serve another term.
So there's only hearsay against Fairfax. Is that really enough to "widely condemn" him?
Not heresay (Score:2)
He admitted to being in the photo. The caption says it was him.
If you look at how he holds beer in other photos (yes really) he is the guy in the klan hood.
Or maybe I'd grant you he is in blackface and he's just friends with KKK dude. Yeah SO MUCH BETTER. Not.
Plenty of people booted from office for way less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Northram admitted that he wore blackface to mimic Michael Jackson for a dance competition
But he did it 30 years ago, long before it was widely seen as politically incorrect.
It was a big kerfuffle about nothing, and it was good to see him stand his ground in the face of all the phony outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
30 years ago was 1989. Blackface was widely seen as "politically incorrect", to put it mildly, in the late 80s.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There actions have been widely condemned and are unlikely to serve another term.Â
Obviously Northam will not be seeking reelection. Virginia has a one term limit for the governor.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they were taking it seriously, but not in any good way: they wanted a fig-leaf, and are sufficiently tone-deaf despite having lots of clever people that it didn't occur to them that the head of a conservative political think-tank was a really shitty choice of fig-leaf.
Re: (Score:2)
Who actually signed the petition. And even just the number of Google employees who signed caused the "tiny mob" to outnumber the "large group" 125-to-1.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I'm sure Google, and Facebook, and Twitter, and Microsoft employees knows whats best for everybody else. They do such a good job keeping companies ethical.
And some wonder (Score:4, Interesting)
why Google, etc might want to relocate to China or other countries........
Re:Shush..... (Score:2)
LOL! No they don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
And some wonder why Google, etc might want to relocate to China or other countries...
Google hasn't even considered such a move because it would be downright idiotic for them.
Have you seen the clashes they having with the EU? Now imagine if the EU could tell them "tough shit" and they just had to comply. Not good for them.
Have you even read about the problems in China? It wouldn't be any good to move your business to China if the government will just steal your IP and give it to a "real" Chinese company.
If you think Google is thinking about moving then you are about as informed as a Fox N
Not moving to, just more willing to work with (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetically, if Google did decide to relocate to China and somehow wasn't instantly wiped out by a stock price crash and key staff quitting, what you you suggest was the best course of action?
Restrict free speech so as not to offend them or make them feel uncomfortable due to criticism?
Give in to their demands just to keep them in the US?
Start a rival service to fill the vacuum?
Re: (Score:2)
No LGBTQ rights in China, tho.
Re: (Score:2)
Do No Evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems the best approach is to add those 3 words back as the corporate mantra.
Language alone won't effect change, so the culture must also change. Yet many inside would like the mantra returned.
Regulatory Capture (Score:2)
Skynet's efforts at character assassination were once again successful.
Everything is going according to plan.
wtf (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't you want differing views on an ethics board? I guess as long as they're not different from yours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unethical by whose standards? Personally, I find a lot of things certain churches do highly unethical while they themselves view themselves as the pinnacle of ethics and morality.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
By whose standards is a total cop out of a position because our can be used to argue for or against literally appointment to the board.
I don't even know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with your point about churches. Should they be on the board (you could argue against disagreement saying unethical by who's standards? ) or off the board (you could argue against disagreement by saying ethical by who's standards).
Personally I think shilling for certain interests by trying to discredit science does not fall
Least social outrage management AI algorithm (Score:2)
Google needs to develop a new AI which will make management decisions for Google based on "lowest social outrage algorithm". They should buy data from Facebook to train the AI on social outrage. Given their history over the past couple of years, this could be a very high ROI internal project.
Re: (Score:3)
Any smart AI would reply "A strange game, this social outrage thing. The only winning move is not to play."
if only (Score:4, Funny)
if only they had assembled the board using some kind of unbiased, refined AI that would figure out the correct mix of different people everybody could agree on.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook already does this every day. It makes sure people only see appealing ideas and opinions or things to get outraged about to keep eyeballs on the platform.
They wanted a bubble (Score:4, Insightful)
As usual, they only did one half of the job (Score:2)
As is typical for Google, they didn't quite go through with it but only did one part of it.
For now, they cancel AI ethics.
CEOs? That's crazy! (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess Politics Ethics (Score:3, Insightful)
Short sighted fools. That's what Google and those "thousands of employees" are. Looks like they want a politically pure board that, because it's based on politics, is utterly incapable of doing its job.
Politics over all, and in place of all. Great idea, worked awesome for the USSR.
Free speach loses again (Score:2)
Another instance of people totally unwilling to openly listen to other ideas. Political correctness is creating the most intolerant generation of people.
How dare they? (Score:2, Troll)
How dare they have a variety of viewpoints represented on an ethics board? Of course the SJWs got their panties in a twist, I mean, their viewpoints are the only ones that count. Everything else must be suppressed.
What is genuinely sad is that Google gave in on this. Since the SJWs got their way this time, they know their strategy works, and they'll whine all the louder next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they'll always get their way. They've mastered the art of bleating with hashtags; the corporate world is petrified of the bad press they can generate.
What better way to affect social change, without any ideas of your own and; all from the comfort of your local Starbucks?
Besides, what good is a panel like this if you can't get it to rubberstamp whatever you tell them to? I bet you think arbitration clauses in contracts are designed to actually be fair to the consumer as well? :)
Humans making decisions for AI. (Score:2)
We just had a bunch of men making decisions about rights for women that everyone made an outcry about.
And yet now we have proposals for ALL HUMAN board to make decisions about the rights of AIs.
Rights for every color except silver and grey apparently.
Oh, the irony (Score:2)
It seems that some at Google think that having an opinion different than their group-think is reason enough to try and silent them.
No tolerance for diversity of thought. No tolerance for different opinions. Hate them because they are different. That is their moral compass?
Is that what we want to teach our AI?
Hold on a second, I'm calling out some BS (Score:2)
Is that really what this is about? That if someone should have a difference of opinion on some hot button topic, they are to be dismissed?
It is obvious that not everyone has the capacity to participate in something like this. But I doubt they would have selected anyone for the board unless they thought they had something to contribute. I mean, they didn't just pick names out of a hat. Did they?
Besides, isn't it supposed to be beneficial to have a diversity of opinions and perspectives? I have always be
Re:Engineers and ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And also, lack of diversity of opinion is the first priority. A trans black lesbian in a wheelchair would get tossed out of the progressive clubhouse if they dared to voice a conservative opinion contrary to SJW orthodoxy.
Thats an odd way of saying that the clubhouse judges people for their mind, not their appearance, background, skin tone, gender or race.
How can you possibly be against that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heritage does explicitly argue against equal rights. Not really sure someone who believes in lesser rights because of who you are is an opinion really worth listening to
The AI Board would be talking about a wide range of issues, of which LGBT rights would only be a small part (it might not even come up at all). I fully agree that not all opinions are equally valuable, but arguing against LGBT rights in no way invalidates the Heritage rep's opinion on all of those other matters. Maybe they do have an appalling view on other matters as well. In that case, why did the Google employees not say so? Then they'd actually have a point, instead of appearing to be a bunch of whi
Re: (Score:2)
arguing against LGBT rights in no way invalidates the Heritage rep's opinion on all of those other matters.
No, being a Heritage rep invalidates their opinion. If you want to have a productive discussion, you don't invite an organization which is a compulsive liar with an agenda to that discussion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. In order to preserve freedom, we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
If someone is working to take away your rights, you should not just accept that as "diversity of opinion", you should fight hard to protect yourself and those like you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. "
It originates with philosopher Karl Popper, and by now is well debunked as a fallacy, because it is obviously broken logic.
"In order to preserve freedom"
Funny how SJWs as yourself and openly Communists such as this person always [usefulstooges.com] come up with big banner words (such as "In the name of humanity" which actually have nothing to do with the problem they are so eager to offer a totalitarian "solution".
we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
Funny how t
Re: (Score:2)
Popper had a pretty good point. WW2 was just ending in Europe, and the policy of appeasement was widely blamed for allowing Hitler to build up his military and start it. By being tolerant of Nazis a lot of people ended up dead, and in the end we had to be intolerant of them in order to preserve freedom for everyone else. In fact we had to punch more than a few of them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Popper had a pretty good point"
Popper had a VERY WRONG point. He didn't distinguish between violence /calls for violence vs. free speech.
"WW2 was just ending in Europe, and the policy of appeasement was widely blamed for allowing Hitler to build up his military and start it."
Nowhere Popper refers to the appeasement, nor was the appeasement in any way related to Hitler's military build up (which he did anyway in secret, long before the appeasers), nor was Hitler the only problem (he was arguably the junior
Re: (Score:2)
What would have been better in the 1930s: being intolerant of Hitler's speech and preventing the Nazis rising to power, or waiting until violence was the only solution?
Re:Engineers and ethics? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. In order to preserve freedom, we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things."
Exactly! We can't tolerate people who are intolerant of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
The paradox of tolerance was first pointed out by Karl Popper. His philosophy is pretty thoughtful to be labelled "left" or "right."
Re: (Score:3)
Your appeal to authority is cute, but the "paradox of intolerance" can stand or fall on its own. It's only the intolerant left who use it so that they can pretend to be "tolerant" and then switch to the infantile "but I don't have to be tolerant because you're hateful" bullshit when called on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your aggressive rhetorical style is quaint. I didn't claim Popper was right, I said he originated the idea, and his politics are more complicated than "left" or "right". Popper also gives specific examples of necessary intolerances, including noting that diverging viewpoints should normally be tolerated unless they are specifically opposed to civil discussion.
Your appeal to binary labels is interesting. Research suggests that the extreme viewpoints I assume you're referring to don't represent the general l
Re: (Score:2)
A tiny, vocal minority that lefties like you refuse to stand up to, which makes you complicit in their behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you'd assume I'm a "lefty", whatever that is. As for standing up to extreme viewpoints, I like to think I have a fairly balanced record of pissing off all sides.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is, that you're the one advocating for and defending the ones with an express desire to remove your rights. It's only recursive once you've handwaved away the actual purpose for having ethics and morals; at the end of the day the right want to remove rights from everyone while the left wants to provide rights to everyone. This is plain as day to all but the least intelligent people (who predictably lean right).
Yeah, the left wants to provide rights to everyone.
LOL. You don't really believe this nonsense, do you?
Re:Engineers and ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Good intentions" more important than results (Score:5, Insightful)
Engineers with ethics? Will the wonders never cease?
No, actually a lack of ethics. Ethical individuals listen to others with diverse or opposite opinions, hear them out, and honestly weigh both side's arguments. It is unethical individuals that presume others are wrong and bar them from participating in the discussion. They are practicing the ethics of fascists, quite ironic.
In any case the goog staff are wrong. You need a diversity of opinions, not a diversity of genders and skin tones. AI will happen, do they want to do it right or let someone else do it badly?
You are absolutely correct. Groups of people with different perspectives often make better decisions than groups of monoculture thought. However we live in an age where results do not matter, where signaling "good intentions" is more important. And again like the hyper partisan politicals they are only "their side" could possibly have "good intentions", thus their ideal of one party control is justified.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny enough, the average engineer I met is way more ethical than the average manager.
Re:Engineers and ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)
"You need a diversity of opinions, not a diversity of genders and skin tones." You need a diversity of both to achieve either.
A diversity of opinions is likely to give you a diversity of genders and skin tones and experiences.
And google's diversity of genders and skin tones is proving you don't necessarily get a diversity of opinions, we are seeing quite the ideological monoculture among Google's "diversity".
Re:Engineers and ethics? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think you've polled Google's employees with the granular depth required to say they all have a particular ideology other than by the fact that they work there, and on what they do. I've had jobs that were just jobs.
And you have never worked for google. I have for 5+ years.
2010 was free open and fun. Discussions across different ideas and ideologies. And everyone respected everyone else.
2018 at google is kind of twitter hate mob. You don't conform and "they" find out they will try to get you fired. Internal emails and lists to ban you from visit other offices to outright calls to fire you, or else.
It is completely insane.
Re: (Score:3)
IQ's may not be exaggerated but competency is (Score:3)
A shitfest of overblown egos and exaggerated IQ.
IQ's may not be exaggerated but competence almost certainly is. Keep in mind that people who have superior performance in one area may also be below average performers in other areas. This is more likely the case here. Superior skills in coding not translating over to organizational behavior and psychology.
Those familiar with organizational behavior and psychology would understand that a group of diverse perspectives would most likely make better decisions than a group with a monoculture perspective. IQs
Re: (Score:3)
The Heritage Foundation: keeping the world safe for entitled white christian males since 1973.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: Heritage also became involved in the culture wars of the 1990s with the publication of "The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators" by William Bennett. The Index documented how crime, illegitimacy, divorce, teenage suicide, drug use and fourteen other social indicators had become measurably worse since the 1960s."
Was Mr. Bennett wrong? Were those social indicators worse in the 1990s than in the 1960s? If so - then why do the facts hurt you so?
Re: (Score:3)
In 1960s, an income of one worker could feed a family of 4, buy a house and a car.
In 1990s, an income of two workers cannot.
If you want to solve social problems, start with the erosion of the middle class and wage dumping. You'll notice that "socialist" Europe, where it still is true that one earner can feed a family, does not have those problems. Now what do you think might be the reason for this?
Re: (Score:3)
In 1960s, an income of one worker could feed a family of 4, buy a house and a car. In 1990s, an income of two workers cannot.
Yes, but if you were to compare the standard of living between the two, you'd probably find that a one income household could feed a family of 4 and buy a house and a car today at the same standard of living as a family in the 1960's. It's just that we expect so much more. The percentages of income that went to housing and food would probably be switched at 25% and 45% with clothes being 10% of the total income. The one thing that is different today, is that you would have a hard time finding a house as sma
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that according to the OECD most of Europe has a standard of living similar to the poorest U.S. States [mises.org], you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
An income of one worker in the U.S. can live in a tiny run-down apartment with their family even easier than they can in Europe. They just choose not to because they have better opportunities here.
Re: (Score:2)
The Culture War era was a reactionary pushback to the gains made by minorities and women preceding the Regan era. It was an example of blaming the victim, a tactic being used by Trump and the Republican Party right now.
Culture Warriors like Bennett demonized their targets and used racial fear and hostility for political propaganda. Bush 41 used the infamous Willie Horton [wikipedia.org] political ad in his election campaign.
Many other commentators remarked that the Bush presidency, and back to the Horton ad of the campaign, stoked racial animosity. Even if there was not an intentional race-bating or similar dog whistle in the ad, the fact that he was black is still a key part of how the ad is still discussed.
Bennett and the Heritage Foundation contributed to the current political s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You can Trust the Heritage Foundation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe I let myself miss this angle. I knew the story didn't add up, but I couldn't come up with a realistic explanation.
I realize now that I had fooled myself by trying to keep a good-faith attitude towards the formation of the board. Yikes, I've got to keep my naive optimism in check.