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

161–170 of 181 posts

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

#161

Post by raxxorraxor »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #148
causality0 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#162

Post by CharlieDigital »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #160
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.

DEI created a lot of bad blood and even more prejudices than before. People will be accused of being DEI hires for years and some groups are now under more heavy scrutiny than before. Sure, if you reduce your perspective on the prevalence of your own artificial metrics like skin color, the numbers might look better. The concept of using discrimination against discrimination wasn't even new, but it was never successfu…

    > DEI created a lot of bad blood and even more prejudices than before.
That's what it looked like in pro-sports and education as well in the early days of integration. It always looks like this until enough time passes.

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

#163

Post by raxxorraxor »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #162
raxxorraxor wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI created a lot of bad blood and even more prejudices than before. People will be accused of being DEI hires for years and some groups are now under more heavy scrutiny than before. Sure, if you reduce your perspective on the prevalence of your own artificial metrics like skin color, the numbers might look better. The concept of using discrimination against discrimination wasn't even new, but it was never successfu…

> DEI created a lot of bad blood and even more prejudices than before. That's what it looked like in pro-sports and education as well in the early days of integration. It always looks like this until enough time passes.

Time will tell indeed. Question is if any progress could reasonably be attributed to DEI or happened despite of it. Compared to universal humanism DEI just had worse ideas and I think those need to be overcome. And all parties need to overcome them, not only the most obvious opposition.

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

#164

Post by raxxorraxor »

cauch wrote: post #78
whimsicalism wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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"?…

This is just another justification for discrimination. You can be sure that everyone that discriminates has their own reasoning.

I doubt that studies in this field are less biased for that matter but they certainly lack hard substantial data.

You yourself are free to take a step back for someone you deem disadvantaged. If you demand this from others, you are just as plainly discriminating. I would argue that you overstep your bounds.

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

#165

Post by raxxorraxor »

sympil wrote: post #103
yagbo7 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a circular definition; stating it’s not about preferential hiring but then saying it’s about not giving a certain demographic preferential treatment. “Enjoyed” is not the right word either. It’s better explained by stating the tech industry is dominated by certain demographics because that’s just how it is, and DEI initiatives give preferential treatment to those who are not in those demographics, in an attemp…

“Enjoyed” is not the right word either. For the last 500 years white men have had preferential treatment when it came to hiring. Indeed a stronger word than “enjoyed” is merited. But you think using “enjoyed” is too strong a word to use to describe such a state of affairs?

But you are not stopping preferential treatment due to race, you advertise for it.

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

#166

Post by AlecSchueler »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #161
AlecSchueler wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

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

#167

Post by raxxorraxor »

rl3 wrote: post #27

Microsoft interestingly enough appears to be standing their ground on DEI. [0] Yet, they hopped on the layoff train this time around with a particularly nasty twist. [1] Perhaps they were afraid they'd need to be sociopathic in at least one regard, lest they buck the wider ethos lately. Facebook for example, offered generous severance packages but threw DEI in the trash immediately. [2] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/20…

Companies with strong DEI programs most certainly have an authoritarian leadership style and for Microsoft that certainly is the case.

As DEI sees itself as better to determine who needs discrimination, so does Microsoft leadership. It is not much more complicated than that and fits the picture. A company with a long history of policies to not enable people to be more independent.

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

#168

Post by gcr »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #127
gcr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

From reading this: 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 signalin…

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Would seem like a pretty open-and-shut 1A issue to me. So much government censorship these days.

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

#169

Post by cauch »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #164
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"?…

This is just another justification for discrimination. You can be sure that everyone that discriminates has their own reasoning. I doubt that studies in this field are less biased for that matter but they certainly lack hard substantial data. You yourself are free to take a step back for someone you deem disadvantaged. If you demand this from others, you are just as plainly discriminating. I would argue that you over…

The problem is that "let's not apply the correction" is also just another justification for discrimination.

Let's approach the problem theoretically. Let's imagine a distant planet where, by construction of our thought experiment, there are 2 groups, A and B, and when evaluated for a job position, people of group A are scored as "their real score plus a random value sampled from a gaussian centered on 1" and people of group B are scored as "their real score minus a random value sampled from a gaussian centered on 1".

In this world, without correction, just using the evaluated score, there is discrimination: for the same merit (or sometimes even when they merit it more), people of group B will usually not be chosen when competing with a person of group A.

In this world, the corrected evaluation score is not biased anymore, even despite the fact that the correction is based on which group they belong to.

Now, we can come back to our reality. You are saying that these biases don't exist, or are smaller than what I think. Great. I'm saying that these biases exist or are bigger than what you think. Your position is not better than mine.

As for the "overstep your bounds", what you are basically saying is that "if you think there is something unfair, it does not count, I'm the only one allowed to decide what is fair or unfair". I'm pretty sure that it exists things that you find unfair and that you don't accept when you are the victim of the unfair situation. And I'm pretty sure that you can, for each case, find individuals that will argue that they don't find it unfair. In this case, be honest, will you really say "I think you are treating me unfairly, but if you think it's not the case, I cannot demand you to change anything or force anything to get retribution, because it will be overstepping my bounds"?

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

#170

Post by csa »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #159
bluedevil2k wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The process is self-selecting Isn’t this the opposite of DEI then? There’s “momentum” in sports - kids want to play what their heroes play, Dominicans have Dominican baseball heroes and play baseball. There’s nothing DEI about that.

It's called "access" The process is self-selecting because it is not merit based; it is based on access and economic factors. It's not that black Americans or Hispanic Americans have no talent for hockey, it's that they have no access so the sport is "self-selecting" wealthier, white athletes who have access and the economics to start and sustain the sport from a young age. To make this a meritocracy, it requires inc…

> If you don't have access, it is not a meritocracy.

I think you’re running into resistance because of this stance.

You’re talking about an optimized meritocracy or a meritocracy at one level of abstraction in which raw talent is able to be manifested due to optimal (or at least good enough) access. This sort of definition might fly in certain academic circles, but it doesn’t fly outside of those circles.

For most folks, “meritocracy”, by which people are selected based on ability, refers to actualized talent rather than theoretical talent. In your case of Dominican ice hockey players, I think most people think that their absence from the NHL does not compromise whatever meritocracy the NHL is (it has other issues), rather it’s merely that most/all Dominican ice hockey talent hasn’t been actualized to a point that it can be professionally competitive.

Bringing this back to DEI, improving access doesn’t really “enable meritocracy”, rather it just makes a meritocracy utilize its available resources more efficiently.

Also, a side note about the failings of DEI discussions outside of academic circles…

Individuals (e.g., NHL team owners) have a great deal of agency in ensuring that the players on their team are more or less chosen by meritocratic standards. These same individuals have much less agency in actualizing ice hockey talent in every place in the world (massive undertaking). As such, they may bristle when their system is accused of being non-meritocratic or non-inclusive because of societal issues that they don’t really have any or much agency to change.

Don’t get me wrong… discussions of underutilized talent are absolutely fascinating. The US in particular is absolutely flooded with underutilized talent, and there have been times in my life when I’ve been able to move the needle in certain organizations about how they tapped into that underutilized talent.

That said, labeling people or orgs as “racist” or “non-meritocratic” just doesn’t fly when the issue is structural rather than something that they actually have direct control of.

Post reply on HN