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.

it‘s also not unrelated, because it speaks to her ability to evaluate facts, and to her soundness of mind.

> 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.

>This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories.

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.

> some past bigoted opinions

These are not opinions she held in the past, these are opinions she holds now and which she actively promotes.

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.