Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 181 posts

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#141

Post by cauch »

gonzobonzo wrote: post #126
cauch wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that a big bunch of studies really point to the fact that if you have two persons with a real merit score of 8/10 (for example), the one from a minority will be considered, due to unconscious biases, as having a score of 7/10 instead. So, yes, there is a correction and this correction is based on race because this is the correct variable to de-bias the evaluation. But does it mean "preferential"?…

Except we're seeing the opposite in the real world. Let me give you a scenario. It's the 1940's, a company has a policy that privileges white applicants. Someone says, "let's remove this policy, and tell the company they have to treat all applicants easily." Someone else replies, "no, because if this company was told they had to treat everyone equally and not privilege white people they would discriminate against whi…

In your scenario, if they indeed have convincing and independent studies proving this, then, yes, they should not remove this policy.

It is also worth mentioning that in real life, we apply such policies. If I remember correctly, black people are more prone to prostate cancer, and therefore there are policies that "discriminate": the process for cancer screening is different between black and white people. Does it mean it is racist? Does it mean it is unfair?

I think the difference is that I focus on equality of opportunity while you focus on equality of outcome. You are targeting "when looking at the process, I want to see everyone treated the same". Others may target "when looking at the opportunities, I want to see everyone with the same merit having the same probabilities of success". It reminds me of the famous cartoon of people wanting to watch a football game over a fence. The drawing illustrates that "treating everyone the same" without considering that not everyone starts from the same situation is stupid.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#142

Post by CharlieDigital »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #58
CharlieDigital wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Coaching hires and selection process in more recent history.

I'd also argue that Venus and Serena Williams were a prerequisite to Coco Gauff. That's the point of representation: to make it easier for the meritocracy to work by creating a path for talent that might otherwise not consider a field (or sport, in this case). In many cases with minorities, what we see are extraordinary individuals who are able to shatter these biases and be pathmakers for others to follow. Jeremy Lin has also talked a lot about his experiences with racism all along his journey to the NBA (racism and prejudice is just a form of exclusion).

But it's ironic, right? Professional sports is a meritocracy that for decades excluded other non-white races from participating. The only reason we can call it a merit based system today is because there were strong efforts by individuals and organizations throughout the 20th century to make it inclusive, you know, the "I" in "DEI". You cannot have a functional meritocracy if individuals are being excluded from participating.

There's this assumption that certain races or genders are just better at coding or engineering or finance or math and that these fields are already merit based. Isn't it more likely that these fields still suffer greatly from the same type of prejudiced exclusion that professional sports suffered from and that "non-conforming" talent is being excluded at the candidate prospecting phase?

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#143

Post by CharlieDigital »

edmundsauto wrote: post #73
bluedevil2k wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.…

Coaching is the most prominent aspect of professional sports in recent history (both gender and race). Minority coaches are a recent phenomenon.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#144

Post by pitched »

Aachen wrote: post #54
pitched wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 kno…

Just to be a bit more clear, this was more a Chesterton Fence comment than a condemnation. Everything has trade-offs and I hope our next solution to this problem is better, not worse.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#145

Post by ivewonyoung »

Aachen wrote: post #140
ivewonyoung wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good read https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-fa...

Article's title: "The Full Story of the FAA's Hiring Scandal" Saving others a click: it's an n=1

Huh, how is it an n=1 ? It affected a lot of folks that they're trying to gather in a class action.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#146

Post by Yossarrian22 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #138

Instead of DEI, why not formal reparations for slavery? Done in the form of a bank, it could be pretty powerful.

Who should qualify? Do we go by a one-drop rule, if so what percentage of the population are we talking here? Do you have to prove that one drop came from slaves in the United States of America(e.g. "Based on best records available your one drop likely came from slaves in Bermuda no reparations for you")?

And finally how should this be funded? Should people who immigrated or whose families immigrated to America after slavery was abolished be taxed also?

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#147

Post by CharlieDigital »

blastonico wrote: post #112
MisterKent wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an ignorant take. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_color_line https://operations.nfl.com/inside-football-ops/players-legen...

[flagged]

2025 - 1940 = 85 (https://www.google.com/search?q=2025+-+1940)

Are you saying there are no 85+ year old people in the US? That the OP's parents couldn't possibly be 85?

Not a very sound argument to make.

The history of the Civil Rights movement and the "end" of state sanctioned racism is a lot more recent than you think.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#148

Post by AlecSchueler »

causality0 wrote: post #37
RustySpottedCat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#149

Post by AlecSchueler »

zombiwoof wrote: post #35
ASinclair wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I’d argue they had reverse intentions in that it over fit on discriminatory hiring (against white men)

What woord you base that argument on?

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#150

Post by dr_dshiv »

Yossarrian22 wrote: post #146
dr_dshiv wrote: post #138

Instead of DEI, why not formal reparations for slavery? Done in the form of a bank, it could be pretty powerful.

Who should qualify? Do we go by a one-drop rule, if so what percentage of the population are we talking here? Do you have to prove that one drop came from slaves in the United States of America(e.g. "Based on best records available your one drop likely came from slaves in Bermuda no reparations for you")? And finally how should this be funded? Should people who immigrated or whose families immigrated to America after…

That’s right. It’s about American slaveholders. So you’d have to prove a direct descendant was a slave. Then there’d be the capitalization of the bank. Could probably be structured as a loan.

And yes, everyone would indirectly be taxed for slavery reparations.

Post reply on HN