News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by olalonde on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @11:50AM (#36126289)
> A good person to follow on real AI safety is Emily M. Bender (professor of computer linguistics at University of Washington): https://mstdn.social/@[email protected]

- Pronouns

- "AI bros"

- "mansplaining"

- "extinction from capitalism"

- "white supremacy"

- "one old white guy" (referring to Geoffrey Hinton)

Yeah... I think I will pass.

Re:Statement on AI Risk by rcpt on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @12:01PM (#36126442)
I think "pronouns" is ok but, yeah, "AI bros" is enough to get a pass from me to. Holier-than-thou name calling is still name calling.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by Al0neStar on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @12:22PM (#36126737)
There are a lot of AI-bros on twitter.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by mitthrowaway2 on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @07:28PM (#36132574)
Do they self-identify as AI bros? Or are you just choosing to call them that?
Re:Statement on AI Risk by brookst on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @12:04PM (#36126482)
Odd that you lump a person's choice of their own pronouns into a legitimate complaint that all she seems to have is prejudice and ad hominems.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by olalonde on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @12:41PM (#36127034)
I have no issue with her choice of pronouns. I just find it odd that she states them when ~100% of the population would infer them correctly from her name Emily (and picture). My guess is she put them there for "ideology signaling".
Re:Statement on AI Risk by mrtranscendence on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @01:06PM (#36127429)
This is unnecessarily cynical. Why should people who are androgynous or trans be the only ones who state pronouns? By creating a norm around it we can improve their comfort at extremely minimal cost to ourselves.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by olalonde on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @01:16PM (#36127540)
I disagree, but HN is probably not the right place for this kind of debate. Also, it seems that you don't follow your own recommendation (on HN at least).
Re:Statement on AI Risk by hucgyuo on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @10:29PM (#36133798)
They brought it upon themselves by indulging in sex mimicry. It's not the responsibility of anyone else to mitigate this.

And it's not necessarily a good thing to normalise wrong-sex pronouns, see e.g. https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

Re:Statement on AI Risk by brookst on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @12:49PM (#36140488)
> My guess is she put them there for ideological signaling.

Yes, and you attacking her for that choice is also ideological signaling. This isn't a case where one choice is totally devoid of signal and the other is pejorative-of-the-day.

Many people believe that using normative pronouns makes those who use different pronouns more comfortable. They may be right, wrong, misguided, whatever. But it's a well-meaning and harmless act, and extremely strange to mention in the same breath as overt racism.

Re:Statement on AI Risk by boredumb on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @12:43PM (#36127071)
Reads like a caricature of the people leading these causes on AI safety. Folks that are obsessed with the current moral panic to the extent that they will never let a moment go by without injecting their ideology. These people should not be around anything resembling AI safety or "ethics".
Re:Statement on AI Risk by hackermatic on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @03:52PM (#36129737)
It sounds like you're making an ad hominem about her ad hominems.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by olalonde on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @10:56PM (#36133985)
I might look past the fact that she was sexist/racist if the topic of interest wasn't ethics. But since it is, I'd say those quoted tweets are pretty relevant.