In other parts of the country that's not common and people see "guys" as gendered, and people feel like you're forgetting they're there.
The word "dude" as a form of address is gender neutral and business appropriate some places and not others.
It's a hard problem: Y'all works some places but sounds goofy and affected in others. Same with "folks."
If I know that some phrase is really uncommon or has different shades of meaning in a different part of the country or a different part of the world, I also know that if I use that phrase in that other place, it will get interpreted differently from what it means to me. It can be frustrating if I haven't yet picked up on the differences, but it's just the nature of communication.
I have also tried to hang on to "y'all" and "folks" since moving to the west coast. "Folks" is a harder sell though, when I use it feels more like an affectation. But that's my perception of others' perceptions. Maybe I'm pulling off "folks" without realizing it. But "y'all" has more staying power, because it's a legitimately useful term that's otherwise missing from the English language.
One less fraught, but equally confusing terms are "a couple" vs. "a few" vs. "a handful" (some believe "couple" = 2 whereas others treat it and the others as explicitly more fuzzy). Often it's best to just assume as little context as possible and be a little more explicit and verbose.
Hey everybody!
Listen up people
All,
What each of you needs to do...
I have a task for all of you
Let’s all have a great time
Alright gentlemen and lady,
Everyone on the team should read this
This applies to everyone on the team
Any person on the team can do xyz
If you see something, say something
Thou hast best checkest thyself, ‘ere thee wreckest thyself!
As a result, I've gotten into the habit of saying "y'all" and "folks" even though I'd otherwise never have used these words.
So what's the acceptable format? "guys, gals, and... others?"
Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports.
Team,
Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports.
Everyone,
Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports.
Good Afternoon/Morning,
Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports.
Staff,
Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports.
I just quickly browsed through my emails I've received this year (coworkers, customers, vendors) and that covers all the ones I've received. All of those are perfectly acceptable.
I wouldn't be personally use "guys," "gals," or "guys and gals" in a non-friend situation.
Folks,...
Why not? When people in positions of power hold ignorant and/or harmful opinions, a stir should be made. One individual in particular comes to mind.
> What kind of unforgiving and judgemental culture are we living in?
The kind where public figures curry favor with their bases of obstinately illiberal^[1] followers by intentionally spreading divisive sentiment?
Nobody is a victim just because people disagree with what they're saying and say as much to their faces. Bad ideas do not in theory deserve a platform beyond what simple freedom of expression provides them. Striving for "diversity of thought" does not mean we should elevate willful ignorance and demagoguery.
^[1] In the general sense of the word. Far-left whackos included, though I think they're a bit less scary than what's going on on the right these days.
I highly doubt having one person with some past bigoted opinions is going to completely overthrow an 8 person council. If anything, once you stack your council with people who all have the same views, then the one individual that comes to your mind will use exactly that to completely undermine the entire council.
These are not opinions she held in the past, these are opinions she holds now and which she actively promotes.
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.
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.
> 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.
If not, all you've said is that conservatives shouldn't be allowed a voice in context such as this. I for one, although not a conservative, think that conservative thinkers may have important contributions to make to ethical debates around technology and AI.
"Conservative" is a word that has become overloaded. Same with "liberal". In fact progressive/conservative and liberal/illiberal are orthogonal axes. I don't have a problem with conservatism, per se—I have a problem with illiberalism, and that's what's on display here.
On an abstract level I think "diversity of thought" (can't believe I'm using those words) is necessary in talking about the ethics of applying new technologies. E.g. human cloning: what are the benefits? What are the pitfalls? If everybody in the discussion is on the same side, the result won't be useful, and I totally agree that someone with intellectual integrity, who identifies with traditional conservative principles, could have a lot of value to bring to the table in that situation.
On the other end of the spectrum we have the "homosexuality is a slippery slope to bestiality" and "men have penises, women have vaginas, GET OVER IT!!! LOL <insert laugh-cry emoji>" crowd. Frankly, no, I don't think those people have anything of value to add, and I don't think we should allow those who indulge them to influence the public discourse. Of course, that horse has left the barn.
There is a middle ground, and I think this woman falls there. I think the highlighted tweets show that she has opinions on social issues that have been shaped by toxic identity politics and demagoguery. I personally judge her poorly for that but I'm not ready to make an overall judgment because those three tweets are all I know about her. I don't think there is anybody who has never said something they regret (of course, I doubt she regrets saying these things, but you get the point).
FWIW I think "the left" goes too far in their reaction to things like this. My comment was more meant to address the general oppression complex "conservatives" have over the "diversity of thought" issue.
Conservatives will almost always be "behind" progressives where progressive social issues are concerned, by definition. Even when they aren't trash-talking outrage merchants, they are inclined to support traditional institutions and social arrangements. There needn't be any malice in this: they want to conserve the good and are hesitant to overturn age-old ways of being for fear of unintended consequences.
That's precisely why I think theirs is a position worth listening to in debates around the ethics of new technologies and their possible impact on society. It's an important consideration and one we're not going to hear from techno-utopians or many on the left.
1) I think that a physical border should be erected on the southern border. 2) I think same-sex marriage should be allowed. 3) I think those who engage in same-sex relationships are engaging in an immoral activity. 4) I think there are 2 genders, male and female, and they are fixed at birth. This breaks down for some people with medical conditions but make up a small enough percentage with should deal with that on a case by case basis.
That's good, because in a liberal society people should be allowed to do and be × whatever and whoever they want as long as they aren't impinging on others' right to do the same.
We are trying to build a liberal society here, right?
> I think those who engage in same-sex relationships are engaging in an immoral activity.
And how do you act on this opinion? In light of your 2), maybe you keep it to yourself because you hold others' freedoms as more important than your personal judgment of their lifestyles. I might judge you in the same way for having this opinion.
> I think there are 2 genders, male and female, and they are fixed at birth. This breaks down for some people with medical conditions but make up a small enough percentage with should deal with that on a case by case basis.
Similar to the above. Personally I don't get why some "right-leaning" folks get worked up about this, but what I care about is: what are you doing about it? Despite your own feelings, do you respect the right of someone to identify as a gender not traditionally associated with their biological sex? Surely, at least, you recognize that the statement in 4) is not any more than an opinion?
This issue gets into thornier territory and I do think it has to be handled on a case by case basis. Given today's political climate you may be surprised to hear that I don't think e.g. that I, a biological male, should be able to declare myself female and then go compete in physical sports against biological women. We have to be honest with ourselves, and treat in good faith with "the other side"; on this issue particularly I think the public discourse is in a very sorry state. We are talking past each other, and we love it. It's disgusting.
---
This segues into another point, and your 1). Take the bathroom thing. People are allegedly concerned that men will declare themselves as women and use this fraudulently assumed identity as an excuse to prey on women in the women's bathroom.
I see this as a silly thing to worry about, and here's why: is there any real evidence or convincing argument that it will make the existing problem worse? Recently in my city, Seattle, (for instance) there have been multiple incidents of homeless men raping women in women's bathrooms. In general, women are preyed upon by men with some frequency. So I don't really worry about this opening a door; the door is already open.
> I think that a physical border should be erected on the southern border.
Similarly, is this a data-driven solution? Is it anchored in a lucid, rational analysis of the real world? I see "the border wall", the idea in the public consciousness, as a thing that exists solely as a political tool. Maybe that is me being excessively cynical, but that's a fact: I see people who support it as having been duped by a demagogue. I would be interested to hear informed opinions stating otherwise.
And here I can circle around to answer your question more generally. The fact that I've typed this all out is representative of my expectation of a certain level of good-faith engagement that no longer (?) seems to exist in the American public discourse. I believe that if people are not speaking thoughtfully, if they are not arguing in good faith, that their contributions are worthless and should be ignored.
Our politics today is full of this. It exists on the left and the right, but Trump is perhaps the exemplar. He is a bully and a brazen liar, illiberal and anti-intellectual, and he fosters and encourages those traits in Americans who follow him. I don't believe he or those who make contributions on the same level should be allowed to contribute, no. I think we should stand up and say enough is enough.
That is not the same as me saying conservative voices should be silenced. Far from it.
> We are trying to build a liberal society here, right?
That might be what you’re trying to do, but it isn’t what many conservatives are trying to do. Depending on the their type of conservatism, many consider the needs of the family, the community, and the nation to be of more importance that the wishes of the individual.
You appear to be saying conservatives are fine so long as they aren’t actually conservatives and are, in fact, liberals with slight conservative leanings.
This is a very hand-wavey thing to say, that (as you say) quite obviously doesn't map perfectly to everyone who identifies as "conservative" and does apply to a lot of people who identify as "liberal". Gun control is one issue that comes to mind.
I touched before on the orthogonality of the progressive/conservative and liberal/illiberal axes, I think, so I won't go into it again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
> You appear to be saying conservatives are fine so long as they aren’t actually conservatives and are, in fact, liberals with slight conservative leanings.
I think that's an incredibly reductive and inaccurate summary of what I said, unless the word "conservatism" has been redefined to mean "illiberalism", to make the latter more palatable.
Oh wait, yes, that is exactly what has happened.
In fairness to conservative thinkers, I will not be going along with this redefinition, and I will continue to call out illiberalism for what it really is.
When did she do this?
> Today @heritage will critique gender identity @UN_CSW because powerful nations are pressing for the radical redefining of sex. If they can change the definition of women to include men, they can erase efforts to empower women economically, socially, and politically. #CSW63
That tweet does not say anything like "trans people don't exist", or that they should be harmed in any way, or that they aren't human. That tweet expresses a perfectly reasonable sentiment that many others share: that human beings are sexually dimorphic and cannot change sex. This sort of hyperbole on the part of transactivists is very frustrating: anyone who doesn't agree with extremist gender ideology is painted as a "bigot".
This is more important than one AI ethics panel with questionable authority. Google is in a position to censor and influence a huge amount of speech on the internet, and the fact that they were targeted by and arguably caved to a small extremist group is very troubling.
It advocates "critiquing gender identity," which I take to mean asserting that gender identity is either not real or not important. Gender identity is the defining characteristic of trans people, so when someone critiques it as a concept, that implies that they think trans identities are made up, possibly for some insidious purpose, ie. that trans people don't really exist. I've heard people say things like "there's no such thing as a transgender, you're either a man or a woman," and this tweet makes me think that James would agree with them.
> or that they should be harmed in any way
Advocating against legislation to protect marginalized groups harms them directly.
> That tweet expresses a perfectly reasonable sentiment that many others share:
Many people in the world share the sentiment that apostates should receive the death penalty. If you lived in a place or time where this was considered a reasonable sentiment, I hope that you would not let it stop you from doing everything you could to oppose murdering people. We currently live in a society where many people believe that trans people should not accepted. I'm willing to be an "extremist" in order to change that.
> that human beings are sexually dimorphic
This tweet says nothing of the sort, nor would I expect it to, as no one in the history of the world has ever suggested the contrary.
> and cannot change sex
This is a red herring. The public controversy is not over what features of human biology can and cannot be changed, but over how society should treat trans people.
> transactivists
trans activists
> This sort of hyperbole on the part of transactivists is very frustrating: anyone who doesn't agree with extremist gender ideology is painted as a "bigot".
If you call the idea that we ought to respect the identites of trans people "extremist gender ideology," I am very happy to call you a bigot.
If gender is—as intelligently argued in decades of academic literature on the subject across a number of disciplines—a performative social construct and not an inherent biological characteristic, then gender identity is, in reality, made up. That doesn't mean gender identity isn't real, but that it isn't inherent. If gender identity isn't inherent and fixed at birth, then it is socially constructed and performed. There are socially dominant identities constructed and performed by the vast majority of humans that matches their [notions of] biological sex. There are also non-dominant identities constructed and performed by not-insignificant minorities of humans that [may] diverge from their [notions of] biological sex. But the identities themselves are made up—they're constructed and performed. Trans identities that diverge from biological sex are just as made up as those of normative male and female identities that match biological sex. The gender identities are real. They're also made up.
I say all this because it frequently comes across as intellectually contradictory and conversationally confusing to not recognize/admit that gender identities are real, but they are also made up by society and its members. I find the vast majority of the most vocal actors engaged in gender debates to be constantly yelling past each other on this point.
PS: Imagine how differently your otherwise nice post would have sounded if it ended like this:
> If you call the idea that we ought to respect the identities of trans people "extremist gender ideology", we have a lot to talk about. I am very happy to take this conversation offline and explain further how it isn't.
If your primary motivation is to ensure all people are accepted, respected, and treated equally and fairly even if they are trans, I find it rather unclear how calling someone a bigot—or litigating academic definitions of socially performative and constructed identities—gets you closer to that. I've been arguing and advocating for the equality of all people regardless of their sexual, gender, ethnic, religious, and whatever other identity group they might belong to for 20 years now. I've seen people's minds changed. I've seen them recognize new ideas. It doesn't happen overnight. And it doesn't happen by calling people bigots because they haven't seen the light yet. It takes consistent, careful attention and respectful effort—even when it's difficult to muster the effort and you just want to tell someone to fuck off for holding what appear to you to be bigoted views. It doesn't matter if the other person doesn't get it, they still ought to be treated with respect and you try again next time. It doesn't matter if they spout off what sound like bigoted views—so they remain convinced of a wrong view now; we can try again the next time we talk. Calling someone a bigot doesn't move the needle. Hell, you didn't even bother to get a definition from the parent for what they think "extremist gender ideology" even is. You jumped right to calling them a bigot. That doesn't help improve the state of discourse or the challenges facing trans people.
The claim that all trans people are actually just cisgendered people trying to fool everyone does imply that trans people don't exist. It also implies that trans people are inherently deceptive. You are demonizing trans people when you claim this. Trans people are not mean-spirited demons who are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and to say that is unethical. Trans people are not "activists" for just being themselves and expecting to be treated with basic human dignity.
This seems to be strange obsession of HN: people excusing (with words) the worst possible statements (words), because „words are not actions“ or „words have no meaning“.
Because they want to be able to use whatever words they want without consequence? Yet they insist on posting somewhere that does have consequences for word usage - downvotes, flagging, and bans. You'd think they'd all go to a freer platform.
I'm not disagreeing with you- that kind of environment can be nice and intellectually liberating in its own way, as long as it isn't a global setting. But that is what you're asking for. Judgement-free safe spaces where everyone has to be nice to each other.
Of course?
If someone tweeted "Unfortunately, the holocaust didn't happen, but we can change that" and their view on the issue of "the Jewish Question" was "the parasites must be exterminated," then I imagine that you would be up in arms if they were ever appointed to an ethics council.
You might not think that James' views are bad enough to warrant the outcry, but can't you at least imagine why someone might think that? If you were trans, for instance, might you be worried about this person getting a position of potential influence?
Now if the council had multiple people like you describe, or worse yet a majority of them, then I would certainly be up in arms, yes. Just like I would be up in arms if a majority of such a council held _any_ extreme-by-society's-standards position (Greenpeace member, orthodox Jew, Catholic priest, Communist party member, hard libertarian, etc, etc). From my point of view, the most dangerous failure mode for an AI ethics council is groupthink that leads them to not notice problems that should get noticed. If the council is set up right, it should not require unanimity, or even a majority to flag something as an issue.
I suspect that you're only willing to say that because, at the moment, nazis are not anywhere close to being in a position to carry out any of their promises. Let's imagine that 30% of the general population agreed with this person's views, but that they were highly unpopular among educated people and had little influence in certain institutions, such as Google. Would you still be shrugging your shoulders and saying that it was worth it to have a diversity of opinion, or would you be scared, and willing to do anything you could to prevent this person and their views from having any more influence?
> From my point of view, the most dangerous failure mode for an AI ethics council is groupthink that leads them to not notice problems that should get noticed.
Hmm… I didn't think there was much of a chance of this council producing anything of value to begin with, so I basically just saw it as a minor endorsement of a small group of people. Maybe my opinion on this matter would be different if I were more concerned about AI and thought that there was meaningful progress to be made by such a group.
But that's not what we're talking about here, either for the particular person on the ex-board or the overall population dynamics: 30% of the population is not in favor of murdering trans people, and neither was anyone on Google's board. To get to the 30% number I think there are two options: 1) reduce the level of disapproval to the point where you in fact have a meaningful fraction of the population (not 30% by any means, but not negligible either, and including some members of congress, which I realize is much more acutely true for the trans case) with an equivalent disapproval level of Jews, or 2) define any expression of disapproval or concern with complications at all as an existential threat. It seems to me that a number of people do the latter in practice, which is why we end up with comparisons with the hypothetical Nazi-like.
Just to expand on this, I really do think there is a vast difference between 1) people who acknowledge that trans people exist and are "legitimate" in whatever sense one cares to think, have concerns about trans women's participation in women's sports, and want to figure out how and whether that can be made to work reasonably, 2) people who just wish trans people as a concept would disappear because it would make everything so much simpler, and 3) people who advocate violence against trans people. I don't think my viewpoint is universally accepted, and there are various instances in this very thread of comments conflating various positions on that spectrum.
Finally, I agree that if this board is not a serious attempt at ethics oversight and is instead just a PR stunt, then there's no point in worrying about a diversity of viewpoints and all that; Google should just appoint whoever will score the most brownie points in whatever status competition they think they're involved in. But I do think that external oversight of AI ethics to prevent echo-chamber effects is quite important, and I'm disappointed in the lack of such, whether that's because there's no board or because there is a useless board.
If Google put a literal Neo-Nazi on an ethics board, I would tell everyone I knew to stop using Google products and applying for jobs there. I'd probably set up a script on my university Gmail to auto-reply to everything saying that I can't be reached through a Nazi-supporting platform, and explaining to the sender can run the same script in protest. Knowing my university, we'd be off Google in a few weeks.
I'd say that the Heritage Foundation is about 2 percent as bad as a Neo-nazi organization (supposing that they were the same size), so I'm about 1/50th as concerned as I would be in the hypothetical scenario. But that's still enough that I'll post on Hacker News about it, and I'd probably sign the petition if I worked at Google.
I, personally, would not be surprised if 30%, or more, of "educated people" across the US agreed that some (though perhaps not all) of the issues she raises are valid issues that need to be addressed.
Now maybe this just makes the situation scarier for trans people, of course....