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.
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.
it‘s also not unrelated, because it speaks to her ability to evaluate facts, and to her soundness of mind.
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.
The choice of leader matter great deal. It influences goals and approaches. Leader matters and is strategical choice.
Can I get a link to what you are talking about? You are very clearly referencing something but I have no idea what it is.
These are not opinions she held in the past, these are opinions she holds now and which she actively promotes.
> 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.
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" 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
> 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.
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.
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.