Well, that's the point, isn't it? If the AI ethics council is meeting four times a year for a couple hours at most, and and has people who can't even agree on "Which bathroom should this person use," how are they going to produce productive advice for actual hard questions that haven't been well-explored?
There is a place for debate between people who don't agree on worldview. This council was never going to be it.
For example, they may not agree on how bathrooms should be organized, but they probably all agree that bathrooms should exist.
The fact that the board had wildly varying opinions is a feature, not a bug. The outputs of this board should be widely agreed upon. If they make declarations that half the country disagrees with, they're going to lose credibility fast. Having an ideologically diverse board helps to secure their credibility.
(If the point of the council is to tell you things that anyone with a functioning conscience could tell you, then the fact that it's needed is a serious indictment of Google management. I'd like to think the council is here for the hard questions.)
With a diverse board, the answers to some questions are going to be inconclusive. But that doesn't mean the board shouldn't exist at all. And it certainly doesn't mean we should eliminate all diversity in the board.
Hard questions, as I mean them, are ones where there's a lot of complexity to even reach a potential answer. Google's trolley problems are those where the decision isn't just "flip the switch," it's "should we gather this data" or "should we conduct this experiment" or "should we participate in the market in this way" where there are unforeseen side effects to doing so, and you want a bunch of smart people in a room to try to figure those out and shake out all the complexity in the problem that you haven't even managed to state clearly.
But if you can't decide whether it's better to kill one person by action or five by inaction in the first place, figuring out whether taking/not taking the action has unexpected ethical implications isn't going to get you closer to any answers.
Personally, I don't see a point in sex/gender-segregated bathroom at all. The only segreggation that makes sense to me is sitting/standing (which mostly conincides with private/non-private).
But if we want sex-segregated bathrooms (and AFAIK many governments force that), then there's little point if people can just randomly change their mind about which category they belong to. What's the point of categories then?
Categories do not need to be immutable. There are meetups for bikers and redditors and many other categories which anyone may self-identify as belonging to. These people prefer to think of themselves as belonging within those categories for any of a number of reasons, and accepting their choice is generally a decent thing to do, barring a compelling reason to the contrary.
The point of the male/female categories is that a large number of people identify as one of those two genders, and prefer strongly to be recognized as within one of those categories. There are exceptions and it's more complicated than that, but in the common case, that's why the categories have value: people ascribe value to them. If recognizing someone's desired identity makes them feel more comfortable, why shouldn't we? In the case of genders, it's especially important since it's such an important category.
Finally, people switching genders on a whim is a strawman itself. Transitioning your gender officially is a multi-year process, and you face significant persecution and stigma along the way. I don't see why anyone would undergo that unless it helped resolve some acute gender dysphoria.
I agree, but you have to ask yourself, what purpose do the categories serve. It seems to me that th epurpose of sex-segregated bathrooms is two-fold: (1) to make people feel more comfortable, because many have weird hangups regarding intimacy and sex, and (2) to keep women safe. Even disregarding (2), it seems to be a choice between inconveniencing a tiny proportion of the population a bit more or inconveniencing most of the population a bit less. In any case, regardless of what bathroom trans people should go in, it doesn't even remotely start to solve other issues (e.g. what bathroom does a dad take his 4-year old daughter in) which is why I think the whole idea is a huge politically-motivated strawman.
It's also the reason we need more ethics boards, because it's a common error technical training leads a person to, where we're taught how to optimize for common cases and defend against unusual cases---when the things we use aren't people and don't care if they're considered "common" or "unusual."
The fundamental difference that will not allow us to converse well here is that you are intentionally not accepting that a trans person is the gender they have transitioned to.
It's clear that's the case from, for example, you saying "to keep women safe" and very obviously not including trans women in that group. Trans women are women and also deserve to use the bathroom where they will feel safer.
But you seem to be intentionally overlooking GP's main point -- people (dare I say most people, probably) have that strange hangup that they really prefer to visit the restroom with people of the same biological gender.
And before somebody comes back with "at some point people did not want to share bathroom with people of a different race", there was a movement to make people see folks of other color as fully human. There is no movement to make people accept seeing naked people with different genitalia.
(added) I don't think anyone is arguing seriously that transsexuals should not use public restrooms, period. But which restroom to use isn't quite as simple as "whatever gender they identify with", unless you believe that others have absolutely no say in the matter.
Routinely, trans people are treated as an entity that should not exist. Or a disease or condition that should be rooted out. Not a valid identity.
Brunei?
There's also the standard fallback answer for "which bathroom": if you make them all single occupancy, it doesn't matter which one. Sometimes that's the solution used in situations like schools.
So maybe pick a better example of a hard question that seems easy. (Though I get the relevance here, given the decried panelist's history and views)
And if you're going to pick one in the end, why not get everyone from that worldview? There are lots of Roman Catholic theologians, for instance, that they could have included. I don't personally agree with them either, but they absolutely have a rich history of thinking about ethics, and they mostly also don't believe in trans people. Why leave James to fend for herself?
(Obviously the people who complained about a prominent right-wing figure would just argue something hypocritical like "only the right kind of diversity of opinion", but that's beside the point; the panel was a dumb idea to begin with, coming from a group with so much of a stake in trying to advance AI for the sake of advertising)
Putting someone hostile towards the LGBTQ community and LGBTQ rights? That’s not diversity. That has no place in 2019.
The fact that they don't agree with the others on LGBT rights should only be an issue if they insist on trying to espouse their unrelated viewpoints using the panel, in which case by all means kick them off.
Say, for instance, that you're asked by a supervisor to collaborate with a Muslim living in a middle eastern country on writing a piece of software. For the sake of argument, say that this particular person believed that the laws recently enacted in Brunei were in line with the commands of Islam, and therefore just. (For the sake of argument only--obviously not everybody in those categories is like this at all--but clearly at least some must be or we wouldn't have situations like this recent one.) Would it be right to refuse to work with this person on writing say, some python code, when the topic of "sharia law" is never going to be a factor? Furthermore, by your argument, would you be willing to trust this person's judgement on software architecture when they have exhibited a, in your view, extreme lack of good judgement in another field?
Second, you can even take this argument to a higher level. You admit that the opposing party has a reason to believe what they believe, and I'd imagine that you'd even grant that they probably believe that their reasons for their particular position are good reasons. Leaving aside whether the positions themselves are good or not, how do you evaluate whether someone's reasons for holding a particular position are good? After all, a religious person may believe that one day an omniscient being will call them to answer for why they failed to keep holy commands in their life. To the holder of such a view, that's a pretty good reason to do some twisted stuff. If anything, (if their religion is right) such a reason for them holding their particular position (fear of eternal condemnation) may even be better to them than your reasons for your position are to you!