I fail to understand. Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir? People’s sensitivity boggles my mind. Can we not say things without having to walk on eggshells? What kind of unforgiving and judgemental culture are we living in?
If it makes you feel any better, not everywhere is like that. I work at a mid sized technology consulting company on the east coast, and I've heard multiple managers say that they hate when they have to manage developers from the west coast. My manager told us about a time she got a nasty email from the lead developer of a team because she started an email with "Hey guys" instead of a gender neutral greeting.
I've lived in the Rust Belt, the southeast, and California for big chunks of my life and you're right on about regionalisms. For language or social norms in general, all that matters is how something's taken, not what was meant by it.
If I know that some phrase is really uncommon or has different shades of meaning in a different part of the country or a different part of the world, I also know that if I use that phrase in that other place, it will get interpreted differently from what it means to me. It can be frustrating if I haven't yet picked up on the differences, but it's just the nature of communication.
I have also tried to hang on to "y'all" and "folks" since moving to the west coast. "Folks" is a harder sell though, when I use it feels more like an affectation. But that's my perception of others' perceptions. Maybe I'm pulling off "folks" without realizing it. But "y'all" has more staying power, because it's a legitimately useful term that's otherwise missing from the English language.
"you all" or "youse" can work as reasonable alternatives. I haven't tried "tons" since I've never actually heard it "used in anger."
One less fraught, but equally confusing terms are "a couple" vs. "a few" vs. "a handful" (some believe "couple" = 2 whereas others treat it and the others as explicitly more fuzzy). Often it's best to just assume as little context as possible and be a little more explicit and verbose.
It's not really regional. I have noticed this most from folks who are transitioning genders. Some are OK with "they", but some prefer folks to go above and beyond to affirm their new gender, thus objecting to "dude" and "guys".
As a result, I've gotten into the habit of saying "y'all" and "folks" even though I'd otherwise never have used these words.
It's funny, the mind-boggling sensitivity definitely goes both ways. I've known people who received direct but totally polite feedback suggesting they use one of many delightful gender neutral greetings instead of "guys", and became incredibly defensive. Probably described the feedback with a word similar to "nasty".
Since it's such a trivial non-issue, shouldn't it be easy to accommodate someone's preference without conflict? Do you believe that anyone who's ever expressed a preference on a trivial non-issue was deliberately trying to create conflict?
Despite what many people say, usage of you guys as non-gendered address, similar to the regional y'all, is rather well-established: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/11816/is-guy-gen.... However, in corporate environments it's still a good maxim to be mindful of people who have non-standard sensibilities, e.g. I personally use you guys as email address only for all-male group of recipients.
Why aren't they respecting your diversity and cultural language? I mean this in a serious way. There is a clash here between your cultural language and their views on gendered language and they immediately got offended by cultural differences and tried to impose their culture on your manager.
Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports.
Team,
Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports.
Everyone,
Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports.
Good Afternoon/Morning,
Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports.
Staff,
Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports.
I just quickly browsed through my emails I've received this year (coworkers, customers, vendors) and that covers all the ones I've received. All of those are perfectly acceptable.
I wouldn't be personally use "guys," "gals," or "guys and gals" in a non-friend situation.
All of those comes across far more formally than "guys", they remind me of a written order from a military officer (source: 10 years in the Army). For me "guys" seems far friendlier.
> Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir?'
Why not? When people in positions of power hold ignorant and/or harmful opinions, a stir should be made. One individual in particular comes to mind.
> What kind of unforgiving and judgemental culture are we living in?
The kind where public figures curry favor with their bases of obstinately illiberal^[1] followers by intentionally spreading divisive sentiment?
Nobody is a victim just because people disagree with what they're saying and say as much to their faces. Bad ideas do not in theory deserve a platform beyond what simple freedom of expression provides them. Striving for "diversity of thought" does not mean we should elevate willful ignorance and demagoguery.
^[1] In the general sense of the word. Far-left whackos included, though I think they're a bit less scary than what's going on on the right these days.
This wasn't really a "position of power" though, it was just a council that would meet once in a while to talk about AI ethics. It was also 1 person out of 8. Don't get me wrong, I think her views are despicable, but if you can't even allow a single person of opposing view in your council, that only shows insecurity in your views.
I highly doubt having one person with some past bigoted opinions is going to completely overthrow an 8 person council. If anything, once you stack your council with people who all have the same views, then the one individual that comes to your mind will use exactly that to completely undermine the entire council.
The are opinions that I would vehemently disagree with, yet not consider illegitimate. The Catholic Church, for example, does and says all sorts of horrible shit. Yet they have a rich intellectual history, are somewhat consistent (i. e. against abortion and also against the death penalty), and for better or worse represent a sizable portion of the population.
This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories. If you want them on your ethics board, you need to also invite flat earthers and people believing there’s a ham sandwich that rules the world. Because who are you to judge some opinions more legit than others.
> This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories. If you want them on your ethics board, you need to also invite flat earthers and people believing there’s a ham sandwich that rules the world. Because who are you to judge some opinions more legit than others.
James wasn't invited because she believes Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracies; so that argument doesn't make sense. Those conspiracies are clearly unrelated to AI ethics and so she was clearly representing something else. She was likely included because she is obviously great leadership material given what she has achieved as an African-American women. Someone of that caliber, and representing a conservative viewpoint to boot, was obviously a reasonable addition to any ethics group.
> She never wrote anything on AI ethics, so she most definitely was invited for some other, unrelated action of hers.
Yes.
> it‘s also not unrelated, because it speaks to her ability to evaluate facts, and to her soundness of mind.
Well, her record of success also speaks to her ability to evaluate facts and suggests she is doing fine.
Believing something that there is clear evidence against is a very common affliction. As long as someone isn't actively acting on their misconceptions, it doesn't suggest anything.
If you demand that leaders are perfect, you will discover all your leaders are liars.
Just because you are successful culture warrior does not mean you ability to evaluate facts is great or that you are good choice for AI ethics board - unless you are choosing that person because of successful culture war which you want to recreate there.
The choice of leader matter great deal. It influences goals and approaches. Leader matters and is strategical choice.
I mean, on the face of it an "AI ethics council" sponsored by (?) Google has the potential to make some fairly far-reaching decisions.
> then the one individual that comes to your mind will use exactly that to completely undermine the entire council.
He'll do it anyway. "Wind turbines cause cancer," etcetera. If we start toadying to the anti-intellectual bent of modern "conservatism", we've already lost, and we should just turn on Fox News and wait to die.
Can you think of a conservative who you don't think holds "ignorant or harmful opinions"?
If not, all you've said is that conservatives shouldn't be allowed a voice in context such as this. I for one, although not a conservative, think that conservative thinkers may have important contributions to make to ethical debates around technology and AI.
> conservative thinkers may have important contributions to make to ethical debates around technology and AI.
"Conservative" is a word that has become overloaded. Same with "liberal". In fact progressive/conservative and liberal/illiberal are orthogonal axes. I don't have a problem with conservatism, per se—I have a problem with illiberalism, and that's what's on display here.
On an abstract level I think "diversity of thought" (can't believe I'm using those words) is necessary in talking about the ethics of applying new technologies. E.g. human cloning: what are the benefits? What are the pitfalls? If everybody in the discussion is on the same side, the result won't be useful, and I totally agree that someone with intellectual integrity, who identifies with traditional conservative principles, could have a lot of value to bring to the table in that situation.
On the other end of the spectrum we have the "homosexuality is a slippery slope to bestiality" and "men have penises, women have vaginas, GET OVER IT!!! LOL <insert laugh-cry emoji>" crowd. Frankly, no, I don't think those people have anything of value to add, and I don't think we should allow those who indulge them to influence the public discourse. Of course, that horse has left the barn.
There is a middle ground, and I think this woman falls there. I think the highlighted tweets show that she has opinions on social issues that have been shaped by toxic identity politics and demagoguery. I personally judge her poorly for that but I'm not ready to make an overall judgment because those three tweets are all I know about her. I don't think there is anybody who has never said something they regret (of course, I doubt she regrets saying these things, but you get the point).
FWIW I think "the left" goes too far in their reaction to things like this. My comment was more meant to address the general oppression complex "conservatives" have over the "diversity of thought" issue.
So you set up a spectrum and seem reasonable so I would like to know where on your above spectrum of acceptable to not allowed to "influence the public discourse". As a predicate, say I have a professional history of interacting with folks with diverse racial, gender, LGBT+, backgrounds. If I believe the below things, where on the spectrum would I fall?
1) I think that a physical border should be erected on the southern border.
2) I think same-sex marriage should be allowed.
3) I think those who engage in same-sex relationships are engaging in an immoral activity.
4) I think there are 2 genders, male and female, and they are fixed at birth. This breaks down for some people with medical conditions but make up a small enough percentage with should deal with that on a case by case basis.
That's good, because in a liberal society people should be allowed to do and be × whatever and whoever they want as long as they aren't impinging on others' right to do the same.
We are trying to build a liberal society here, right?
> I think those who engage in same-sex relationships are engaging in an immoral activity.
And how do you act on this opinion? In light of your 2), maybe you keep it to yourself because you hold others' freedoms as more important than your personal judgment of their lifestyles. I might judge you in the same way for having this opinion.
> I think there are 2 genders, male and female, and they are fixed at birth. This breaks down for some people with medical conditions but make up a small enough percentage with should deal with that on a case by case basis.
Similar to the above. Personally I don't get why some "right-leaning" folks get worked up about this, but what I care about is: what are you doing about it? Despite your own feelings, do you respect the right of someone to identify as a gender not traditionally associated with their biological sex? Surely, at least, you recognize that the statement in 4) is not any more than an opinion?
This issue gets into thornier territory and I do think it has to be handled on a case by case basis. Given today's political climate you may be surprised to hear that I don't think e.g. that I, a biological male, should be able to declare myself female and then go compete in physical sports against biological women. We have to be honest with ourselves, and treat in good faith with "the other side"; on this issue particularly I think the public discourse is in a very sorry state. We are talking past each other, and we love it. It's disgusting.
---
This segues into another point, and your 1). Take the bathroom thing. People are allegedly concerned that men will declare themselves as women and use this fraudulently assumed identity as an excuse to prey on women in the women's bathroom.
I see this as a silly thing to worry about, and here's why: is there any real evidence or convincing argument that it will make the existing problem worse? Recently in my city, Seattle, (for instance) there have been multiple incidents of homeless men raping women in women's bathrooms. In general, women are preyed upon by men with some frequency. So I don't really worry about this opening a door; the door is already open.
> I think that a physical border should be erected on the southern border.
Similarly, is this a data-driven solution? Is it anchored in a lucid, rational analysis of the real world? I see "the border wall", the idea in the public consciousness, as a thing that exists solely as a political tool. Maybe that is me being excessively cynical, but that's a fact: I see people who support it as having been duped by a demagogue. I would be interested to hear informed opinions stating otherwise.
And here I can circle around to answer your question more generally. The fact that I've typed this all out is representative of my expectation of a certain level of good-faith engagement that no longer (?) seems to exist in the American public discourse. I believe that if people are not speaking thoughtfully, if they are not arguing in good faith, that their contributions are worthless and should be ignored.
Our politics today is full of this. It exists on the left and the right, but Trump is perhaps the exemplar. He is a bully and a brazen liar, illiberal and anti-intellectual, and he fosters and encourages those traits in Americans who follow him. I don't believe he or those who make contributions on the same level should be allowed to contribute, no. I think we should stand up and say enough is enough.
That is not the same as me saying conservative voices should be silenced. Far from it.
> That's good, because in a liberal society people should be allowed to do and be × whatever and whoever they want as long as they aren't impinging on others' right to do the same.
> We are trying to build a liberal society here, right?
That might be what you’re trying to do, but it isn’t what many conservatives are trying to do. Depending on the their type of conservatism, many consider the needs of the family, the community, and the nation to be of more importance that the wishes of the individual.
You appear to be saying conservatives are fine so long as they aren’t actually conservatives and are, in fact, liberals with slight conservative leanings.
> That might be what you’re trying to do, but it isn’t what many conservatives are trying to do. Depending on the their type of conservatism, many consider the needs of the family, the community, and the nation to be of more importance that the wishes of the individual.
This is a very hand-wavey thing to say, that (as you say) quite obviously doesn't map perfectly to everyone who identifies as "conservative" and does apply to a lot of people who identify as "liberal". Gun control is one issue that comes to mind.
I touched before on the orthogonality of the progressive/conservative and liberal/illiberal axes, I think, so I won't go into it again.
> You appear to be saying conservatives are fine so long as they aren’t actually conservatives and are, in fact, liberals with slight conservative leanings.
I think that's an incredibly reductive and inaccurate summary of what I said, unless the word "conservatism" has been redefined to mean "illiberalism", to make the latter more palatable.
Oh wait, yes, that is exactly what has happened.
In fairness to conservative thinkers, I will not be going along with this redefinition, and I will continue to call out illiberalism for what it really is.
That was a more thoughtful response than I expected. Thank you. I largely agree, but I do think that a reasonable and intelligent person can disagree with transgender activism or gay marriage, for example, and still make a useful contribution in many areas of society, including the one under discussion.
Conservatives will almost always be "behind" progressives where progressive social issues are concerned, by definition. Even when they aren't trash-talking outrage merchants, they are inclined to support traditional institutions and social arrangements. There needn't be any malice in this: they want to conserve the good and are hesitant to overturn age-old ways of being for fear of unintended consequences.
That's precisely why I think theirs is a position worth listening to in debates around the ethics of new technologies and their possible impact on society. It's an important consideration and one we're not going to hear from techno-utopians or many on the left.
This is an ethics council. Things like advocating against the right for certain classes of people to exist in public spaces are relevant to deciding if someone should be a member of an ethics council.
The Heritage Foundation is famous for their attacks on LGBT people, saying that they shouldn't have children and shouldn't have basic human rights. Literally there are tweets from the exact person in question suggesting that trans people don't exist.
> Today
@heritage
will critique gender identity
@UN_CSW
because powerful nations are pressing for the radical redefining of sex. If they can change the definition of women to include men, they can erase efforts to empower women economically, socially, and politically. #CSW63
That tweet does not say anything like "trans people don't exist", or that they should be harmed in any way, or that they aren't human. That tweet expresses a perfectly reasonable sentiment that many others share: that human beings are sexually dimorphic and cannot change sex. This sort of hyperbole on the part of transactivists is very frustrating: anyone who doesn't agree with extremist gender ideology is painted as a "bigot".
This is more important than one AI ethics panel with questionable authority. Google is in a position to censor and influence a huge amount of speech on the internet, and the fact that they were targeted by and arguably caved to a small extremist group is very troubling.
> That tweet does not say anything like "trans people don't exist"
It advocates "critiquing gender identity," which I take to mean asserting that gender identity is either not real or not important. Gender identity is the defining characteristic of trans people, so when someone critiques it as a concept, that implies that they think trans identities are made up, possibly for some insidious purpose, ie. that trans people don't really exist. I've heard people say things like "there's no such thing as a transgender, you're either a man or a woman," and this tweet makes me think that James would agree with them.
> or that they should be harmed in any way
Advocating against legislation to protect marginalized groups harms them directly.
> That tweet expresses a perfectly reasonable sentiment that many others share:
Many people in the world share the sentiment that apostates should receive the death penalty. If you lived in a place or time where this was considered a reasonable sentiment, I hope that you would not let it stop you from doing everything you could to oppose murdering people. We currently live in a society where many people believe that trans people should not accepted. I'm willing to be an "extremist" in order to change that.
> that human beings are sexually dimorphic
This tweet says nothing of the sort, nor would I expect it to, as no one in the history of the world has ever suggested the contrary.
> and cannot change sex
This is a red herring. The public controversy is not over what features of human biology can and cannot be changed, but over how society should treat trans people.
> transactivists
trans activists
> This sort of hyperbole on the part of transactivists is very frustrating: anyone who doesn't agree with extremist gender ideology is painted as a "bigot".
If you call the idea that we ought to respect the identites of trans people "extremist gender ideology," I am very happy to call you a bigot.
> It advocates "critiquing gender identity," which I take to mean asserting that gender identity is either not real or not important. Gender identity is the defining characteristic of trans people, so when someone critiques it as a concept, that implies that they think trans identities are made up, possibly for some insidious purpose, ie. that trans people don't really exist. I've heard people say things like "there's no such thing as a transgender, you're either a man or a woman," and this tweet makes me think that James would agree with them.
If gender is—as intelligently argued in decades of academic literature on the subject across a number of disciplines—a performative social construct and not an inherent biological characteristic, then gender identity is, in reality, made up. That doesn't mean gender identity isn't real, but that it isn't inherent. If gender identity isn't inherent and fixed at birth, then it is socially constructed and performed. There are socially dominant identities constructed and performed by the vast majority of humans that matches their [notions of] biological sex. There are also non-dominant identities constructed and performed by not-insignificant minorities of humans that [may] diverge from their [notions of] biological sex. But the identities themselves are made up—they're constructed and performed. Trans identities that diverge from biological sex are just as made up as those of normative male and female identities that match biological sex. The gender identities are real. They're also made up.
I say all this because it frequently comes across as intellectually contradictory and conversationally confusing to not recognize/admit that gender identities are real, but they are also made up by society and its members. I find the vast majority of the most vocal actors engaged in gender debates to be constantly yelling past each other on this point.
PS: Imagine how differently your otherwise nice post would have sounded if it ended like this:
> If you call the idea that we ought to respect the identities of trans people "extremist gender ideology", we have a lot to talk about. I am very happy to take this conversation offline and explain further how it isn't.
If your primary motivation is to ensure all people are accepted, respected, and treated equally and fairly even if they are trans, I find it rather unclear how calling someone a bigot—or litigating academic definitions of socially performative and constructed identities—gets you closer to that. I've been arguing and advocating for the equality of all people regardless of their sexual, gender, ethnic, religious, and whatever other identity group they might belong to for 20 years now. I've seen people's minds changed. I've seen them recognize new ideas. It doesn't happen overnight. And it doesn't happen by calling people bigots because they haven't seen the light yet. It takes consistent, careful attention and respectful effort—even when it's difficult to muster the effort and you just want to tell someone to fuck off for holding what appear to you to be bigoted views. It doesn't matter if the other person doesn't get it, they still ought to be treated with respect and you try again next time. It doesn't matter if they spout off what sound like bigoted views—so they remain convinced of a wrong view now; we can try again the next time we talk. Calling someone a bigot doesn't move the needle. Hell, you didn't even bother to get a definition from the parent for what they think "extremist gender ideology" even is. You jumped right to calling them a bigot. That doesn't help improve the state of discourse or the challenges facing trans people.
Trans activists. "Trans" is an adjective. Calling someone a "trans activist" would be like them calling you a "stupidbigot."
> Video
So, the first words of the video are:
"Sex typically refers to your biological traits such as your gonads, your genitalia, your internal sex characterstics, your hormone production, hormone response, and secondary sex characteristics"
To me claiming that humans are not sexually dimorphic would mean claiming that men and women don't generally differ in these characteristics. That's also what it would mean to "deny the existence of biological sex." That's obviously not what this video is doing, since they acknowledge all of these things from the beginning. This video is just about how intersex and trans people exist, and sometimes exhibit a mixed set of characteristics that we usually think of us mutually exclusive. This is obviously true and goes without saying for anyone older than the intended audience for the video, teenagers.
> This video contains at least one lawyer from the ACLU, Chase Strangio, claiming that there is no such thing as a "male body" or "female body".
So, I assume you're talking about the beginning:
"What are we talking about when we say sex and gender, is there something called biological sex and what does that mean."
Notice that this is a question. He's introducing a discussion about this topic.
"This idea that the body is either male or female is totally wrong"
They're saying that the body is not exclusively male or female. They're not saying that humans don't differ sexually / aren't sexually dimorphic.
> This video is accompanied by many other articles all arguing that transwomen are "female" because they say so, and therefore should be allowed in women's sex segregated spaces, sports etc.
Trans women are female and should be allowed in women's spaces. That doesn't imply that humans are not sexually dimorphic. In fact, in implies the opposite: if humans were like amoebas and were not sexually dimorphic, then no one could be called female. Clownfish sometimes change sex naturally, but no one would say they're not sexually dimorphic.
>That tweet does not say anything like "trans people don't exist"...
The claim that all trans people are actually just cisgendered people trying to fool everyone does imply that trans people don't exist. It also implies that trans people are inherently deceptive. You are demonizing trans people when you claim this. Trans people are not mean-spirited demons who are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and to say that is unethical. Trans people are not "activists" for just being themselves and expecting to be treated with basic human dignity.
Said another way, she works for an organization that supports extremely dubious scientific anti-global warming 'research'. I won't repost the other postings by people up above that were basically saying transgender people don't exist, or shouldn't exit.
She was chosen for a position that does nothing but comment and publish views on issues. So yes.
This seems to be strange obsession of HN: people excusing (with words) the worst possible statements (words), because „words are not actions“ or „words have no meaning“.
Because they want to be able to use whatever words they want without consequence? Yet they insist on posting somewhere that does have consequences for word usage - downvotes, flagging, and bans. You'd think they'd all go to a freer platform.
I agree with you in principle, but what you are describing is a safe space in which all viewpoints can be voiced without judgement, and in which everyone has to politely sugarcoat major disagreements instead of "telling it like it is".
I'm not disagreeing with you- that kind of environment can be nice and intellectually liberating in its own way, as long as it isn't a global setting. But that is what you're asking for. Judgement-free safe spaces where everyone has to be nice to each other.
I tend to agree. While I find it painful to hear criticism when I inadvertently use words or phrases that are taken hurtfully, I nevertheless would prefer to be offered a wider perspective about how my words and actions are viewed so I can more clearly communicate in the future making fewer verbal blunders that detract from my point.
> Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir?
Of course?
If someone tweeted "Unfortunately, the holocaust didn't happen, but we can change that" and their view on the issue of "the Jewish Question" was "the parasites must be exterminated," then I imagine that you would be up in arms if they were ever appointed to an ethics council.
You might not think that James' views are bad enough to warrant the outcry, but can't you at least imagine why someone might think that? If you were trans, for instance, might you be worried about this person getting a position of potential influence?
I'm Jewish. I would not in fact be up in arms if your hypothetical person were on an AI ethics council, if I felt they might have useful things to contribute outside the context of "the Jewish Question". I suspect I would personally be happier if people could be found who could offer similar contributions without that particular viewpoint, but "mildly unhappy" is about as far as I would go in this particular scenario.
Now if the council had multiple people like you describe, or worse yet a majority of them, then I would certainly be up in arms, yes. Just like I would be up in arms if a majority of such a council held _any_ extreme-by-society's-standards position (Greenpeace member, orthodox Jew, Catholic priest, Communist party member, hard libertarian, etc, etc). From my point of view, the most dangerous failure mode for an AI ethics council is groupthink that leads them to not notice problems that should get noticed. If the council is set up right, it should not require unanimity, or even a majority to flag something as an issue.
> "mildly unhappy" is about as far as I would go in this particular scenario.
I suspect that you're only willing to say that because, at the moment, nazis are not anywhere close to being in a position to carry out any of their promises. Let's imagine that 30% of the general population agreed with this person's views, but that they were highly unpopular among educated people and had little influence in certain institutions, such as Google. Would you still be shrugging your shoulders and saying that it was worth it to have a diversity of opinion, or would you be scared, and willing to do anything you could to prevent this person and their views from having any more influence?
> From my point of view, the most dangerous failure mode for an AI ethics council is groupthink that leads them to not notice problems that should get noticed.
Hmm… I didn't think there was much of a chance of this council producing anything of value to begin with, so I basically just saw it as a minor endorsement of a small group of people. Maybe my opinion on this matter would be different if I were more concerned about AI and thought that there was meaningful progress to be made by such a group.
One other thing, because I do think this is also important. In the presented hypothetical, "highly unpopular among educated people" is an important condition which I'd love to see data for in the case in question. That will require carefully pinning down by what views we really think Kay Coles James holds, though; I suspect that support for her views varies quite significantly based on that, and also based on geography and age, after controlling for education.
I, personally, would not be surprised if 30%, or more, of "educated people" across the US agreed that some (though perhaps not all) of the issues she raises are valid issues that need to be addressed.
Now maybe this just makes the situation scarier for trans people, of course....
I agree that the degree of possible harm is important here. But I also think that if we start measuring that, then we have to compare the actual positions people hold to the one you ascribed to your hypothetical outspoken Nazi-like person. If someone who advocates murdering trans people were placed on such a board I would be a lot more up in arms than in the hypothetical Nazi-like case. For a number of reasons, including the power dynamic, but not limited to that.
But that's not what we're talking about here, either for the particular person on the ex-board or the overall population dynamics: 30% of the population is not in favor of murdering trans people, and neither was anyone on Google's board. To get to the 30% number I think there are two options: 1) reduce the level of disapproval to the point where you in fact have a meaningful fraction of the population (not 30% by any means, but not negligible either, and including some members of congress, which I realize is much more acutely true for the trans case) with an equivalent disapproval level of Jews, or 2) define any expression of disapproval or concern with complications at all as an existential threat. It seems to me that a number of people do the latter in practice, which is why we end up with comparisons with the hypothetical Nazi-like.
Just to expand on this, I really do think there is a vast difference between 1) people who acknowledge that trans people exist and are "legitimate" in whatever sense one cares to think, have concerns about trans women's participation in women's sports, and want to figure out how and whether that can be made to work reasonably, 2) people who just wish trans people as a concept would disappear because it would make everything so much simpler, and 3) people who advocate violence against trans people. I don't think my viewpoint is universally accepted, and there are various instances in this very thread of comments conflating various positions on that spectrum.
Finally, I agree that if this board is not a serious attempt at ethics oversight and is instead just a PR stunt, then there's no point in worrying about a diversity of viewpoints and all that; Google should just appoint whoever will score the most brownie points in whatever status competition they think they're involved in. But I do think that external oversight of AI ethics to prevent echo-chamber effects is quite important, and I'm disappointed in the lack of such, whether that's because there's no board or because there is a useless board.
So, I absolutely agree that the Heritage Foundation is less dangerous to trans people than Nazis are to Jews. However, the parent seemed to be objecting prima facie to removing someone from an ethics board on the basis of their views on issues. If we concede that Jews should object to even a single Nazi being put on an ethics board, then that objection evaporates it's instead just a question of degree: how harmful do you think the Heritage Foundation's views are compared to those of a Nazi?
If Google put a literal Neo-Nazi on an ethics board, I would tell everyone I knew to stop using Google products and applying for jobs there. I'd probably set up a script on my university Gmail to auto-reply to everything saying that I can't be reached through a Nazi-supporting platform, and explaining to the sender can run the same script in protest. Knowing my university, we'd be off Google in a few weeks.
I'd say that the Heritage Foundation is about 2 percent as bad as a Neo-nazi organization (supposing that they were the same size), so I'm about 1/50th as concerned as I would be in the hypothetical scenario. But that's still enough that I'll post on Hacker News about it, and I'd probably sign the petition if I worked at Google.
It's a tool of control, nothing more. Being guilty of wrong-think is enough to get you blackballed in the tech world. Never mind the goal posts are continually moving.
