This is exactly the mentality that I find exhausting: it's this with us or against us attitude, this idea that the company shouldn't engage at all with people who have views contrary to those of the activists, this ridiculous demand for purity --- it creates a claustrophobic and hostile ideology-suffused atmosphere. It's not healthy.

Google is one of the most LGBT-friendly companies on Earth. It's not going to lose this spirit because it has someone from a milquetoast place like Heritage on some non-binding AI advisory board. The Kay Cole's James outrage mob was an ideological flex, not a genuine concern for the wellbeing of LGBT employees in the company.

The Kay Cole's James affair is a perfect example of the activist dynamic at Google: the activists claim to be protesting vulnerable people, but what they're actually doing is trying to sideline, delegitimize, and silence their political opponents.

What perspective regarding the future of AI does the Heritage Foundation bring that another organization could not bring? they're not exactly experts in artificial intelligence. Or cybernetics. Or ethics.

> ideological flex

I'm not sure why you say that. the Googlers I corresponded with at the time had some serious questions about how this seemed to operate in contradiction to the company's goals. and if I recall correctly, the company was undergoing management shake up at the time, so I don't think it was an unfounded concern.

The entire advisory board was an activist flex on the part of Google, not a genuine interest in AI ethics (if it were, Kay Cole James would have no place on it, she has no expertise). So I'm not sure what your point is.