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.
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.