21–30 of 121 posts
I welcome the choice of moving the conference to a place where there are no logistic problems. As a scientist, however, I abhor organizations such as BlacksInAI: in science there’s no place for identity politics.
There's no such thing as an absence of identity politics. Only the politics of the status quo, which as we know has not been fantastic for PoC, women, LGBT+, ...
I welcome the choice of moving the conference to a place where there are no logistic problems. As a scientist, however, I abhor organizations such as BlacksInAI: in science there’s no place for identity politics.
> in science there’s no place for identity politics Sounds like a "theory vs practice thing". Do you believe that identity should not, and/or does not affect a person's ability to practice science to the best of their potential? Of course I believe that in theory it should not but in practice it does. Organizations that try to correct, compensate, steer, etc. things towards where they should be, need to exist because…
Citation needed.
>There is nothing unscientific about it, but maybe you have data to prove otherwise.
If you make a claim that something should be done, the burden on proof is on you to substantiate that claim.
I welcome the choice of moving the conference to a place where there are no logistic problems. As a scientist, however, I abhor organizations such as BlacksInAI: in science there’s no place for identity politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in science there’s no place for identity politics Sounds like a "theory vs practice thing". Do you believe that identity should not, and/or does not affect a person's ability to practice science to the best of their potential? Of course I believe that in theory it should not but in practice it does. Organizations that try to correct, compensate, steer, etc. things towards where they should be, need to exist because…
>things are not where they should be Citation needed. >There is nothing unscientific about it, but maybe you have data to prove otherwise. If you make a claim that something should be done, the burden on proof is on you to substantiate that claim.
Are you seriously trying to claim that science is a perfect meritocracy?
Seriously?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>things are not where they should be Citation needed. >There is nothing unscientific about it, but maybe you have data to prove otherwise. If you make a claim that something should be done, the burden on proof is on you to substantiate that claim.
> things are not where they should be Are you seriously trying to claim that science is a perfect meritocracy? Seriously?
I'm not making any particular claim about science. I'm making a general claim about reason: someone making a moral argument must provide some reason or evidence to support that argument. In this particular case, it means that if someone wants to make a claim that there is something morally wrong with the distribution of scientists with respect to some particular characteristic, the onus is on them to support their claim (refute the null hypothesis).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as a datapoint: the author of cURL basically can’t go to the US right now for.... some reason https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgat... The opaqueness of the US system is pretty high. I do agree that other places have bigger problems. There won’t be too many conferences in Saudi Arabia I bet.
I love Daniel and the amazing work he’s done over the last several years ... but that blog reads like a parody. He’s complaining about filling forms like it’s the worst thing that’s ever happened to him. Meanwhile, for folks who aren’t American/Canadian/European/Australian, this is just a regular Tuesday. Typically when I file for visas I have to give detailed statements of all my bank accounts, all my investments, m…
In addition to helping other countries, which I think they should rightfully do and am happy to hear about. I wonder if the A.I. community will invest in educating the lesser privledged in their local communities? Mainly those from poor areas that don’t have access to technology and educational resources?
This is whataboutism.
I'm growing nostalgic for the days when HN posters just blindly asked for "citations" or suggested "imposter syndrome" as reflexive and ostensibly-intelligent counterarguments.
Maybe its time for vacuous catchphrase responses to be autoflagged as postmodern gibberish.
It is kind of sad that we have this way of carving up the world into arbitrary pieces and calling us "us" and them "the enemy".
I welcome the choice of moving the conference to a place where there are no logistic problems. As a scientist, however, I abhor organizations such as BlacksInAI: in science there’s no place for identity politics.
If there are institutional barriers to identity groups participating in scientific communities then there is a need for “identity politics” in those scientific communities to identify and remove the barriers. For example, I think the increased participation of women in science over the past century happened because of “activist” scientists acknowledging there were real barriers to women participating in science and t…
I can accept that maybe there are still some barriers in some situations I am not aware of, but then the message should not be “more blacks in science” or “more women in science”.
That’s countereffective and humiliating for minority people: the focus should be on the barriers, if any, not on the headcount. We are not pandas in need of protection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> things are not where they should be Are you seriously trying to claim that science is a perfect meritocracy? Seriously?
>Are you seriously trying to claim that science is a perfect meritocracy? I'm not making any particular claim about science. I'm making a general claim about reason: someone making a moral argument must provide some reason or evidence to support that argument. In this particular case, it means that if someone wants to make a claim that there is something morally wrong with the distribution of scientists with respect…
So I put it to you again, do you agree with the statement or do you disagree?