Comment by RelativeDelta | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RelativeDelta | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The dichotomy in your last point is constructed.

Something not being designed to do X does not mean it is designed to do Y.

The hackles raised here over "diversity" are, as you note, likely related to demographic considerations as opposed to say geographic considerations.

The argument is usually that the goal of government programs should be to accomplish a task as effectively and efficiently as possible. In the case of AI doing so is especially important in an era of rising geopolitical multipolarity. Sacrificing this for the sake of appeasing identity interest groups is short-sighted.

As we briefly explored, arguments that demographic diversity augment this efficacy have yet to meaningfully materialize, while concrete evidence to the contrary has both in the literature and in large-scale behavioral patterns (the neighborhood trust studies come to mind). It's one of, if not THE, most contentious area of sociology and public policy right now because of the obvious implications.

IMO that's why people latch onto it and why it's getting so much attention here. It's a hot button issue of grave importance that hasn't been solved yet and discussions around it are extremely painful and frequently stifled.

I appreciate the reply and I think you have accurately highlighted one reason this general area is such a trigger point on the board.

In the context of this specific initiative, my view would still be: America is an inherently diverse place, so a program that seeks to develop an AI workforce across America but does not create a diverse one has not achieved “maximum effectiveness” and has not effectively served all of America.

That may very well be true "in your view" but, if you'll excuse my pessimism, that doesn't mean very much if it results in China or India developing more effective models faster and more cheaply.

We may be diverse, but that needn't mean every sector of every niche in every industry must be so or that it would be better if it were.

Our position in the world is relative. Our power comes from the relative delta between us and "them", whomever it is we happen to be competing with.

To forget that fundamental relation, even in service to our personal sense of morality, is solipsism.

Well, that is your view. We are both just voicing our opinions, so without any concrete evidence neither of us can fairly state one as an outright fact, pessimistic or not. I will respond to your points, but since our conversation began as a discussion about academic behavioral research and is now 100% an exchange of opinion between non-experts, I'm going to get off at this station.

>if it results in China or India developing more effective models faster and more cheaply

Why should we project that possibility? The most successful research centers for new AI development have been American organizations like OpenAI and Google with clearly stated diversity policies. And of course, this OP is not about private companies, it's about a public resource program. Do you have any evidence that China and India are developing more effective models faster and more cheaply and that it's because of some specific lack of attention paid to ensuring public resources are broadly accessible to all demographics?

>We may be diverse, but that needn't mean every sector of every niche in every industry must be so or that it would be better if it were.

Rather than address this whole point, I'll revisit that we are talking about a federally funded public education program. I do not think a federally funded program to develop a bigger AI workforce in America would be more successful if it did not serve all Americans, and especially not if some of the funding were diverted to gatekeeping its resources to specific demographics.

This is strictly personal opinion, but mine is: America is not China or India and that extends to the values enshrined in our founding documents and constitutional amendments. It is my view one of those values is equal opportunity for all, and it is my view we should not compromise our values for a perceived opportunity to better "compete" on an arbitrarily constrained playing field with other players we feel do not share those values. I think modern history has repeatedly proven that democratic and equitable organizations and countries prevail over those that are not and I don't see where in the lesson plan of America's history we would glean the insight that we should compromise our values now, in this case.

India and China are awful examples for your case, they aren't homogenous and have quotas for minorities that make affirmative action look like a joke. America is much more laissez faire about racial equality (which is a bad thing imo)

Saying that China or India are not "diverse" seems to assume that all Chinese people are actually members of the same group simply because they're all "Chinese people".

(China recognizes 55 ethnic minorities, and the Han majority itself speaks several mutually unintelligible languages although they kind of just ignore that.)

I run into this line of thinking quite often and it truly perplexes me.

Harvard’s incoming freshman class is a good example of the utter failure of mandating “reflective diversity” in higher education (or above). In nominal terms, 18% of these freshman are black. They are heavily, heavily incentivized and provided substantial affordances in the admissions process, even when compared to other minority groups. And the result is actually several percentage points ABOVE “reflective diversity”! Success!

Except going by historical trends compiled by “The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education” [1], the overwhelming majority - up to 75%! - of these incoming black freshmen are wealthy scions of the elite from Africa/the Caribbean or legacy admissions.

A top-down policy supposedly designed to promote opportunities for the descendants of slaves, has not only resulted in further disenfranchisement, but has served to coat the entire situation with a pernicious sense of false righteousness that has effectively boxed out the intended beneficiaries from engaging in the public discourse with their concerns. Which, in turn, is causing actual discriminatory beliefs to arise (check out “ADOS” or “FBA” hashtags on Twitter for a taste).

And fwiw, this trend is much broader and taller than just the Ivies. I can’t find the source again at the moment, but in one recent year, an outright majority of all publicized black hires in the C-suite weren’t American born blacks. Outright homogeneity (which doesn’t exist) is hardly less “reflective” of native-born Americans than the current situation.

The saddest aspect to all this is we’d get much more actual “reflective” diversity if we pulled all the distortionary diversity money out of the upper levels of the system and put it into massively improving the communities and EARLY educational outcomes of these underrepresented groups.

Unless you believe in the absolute primacy of genetics, community/home life and early education are the ONLY reliably predictive measures for success (after controlling for wealth). Our attention should be on those things, not on shady initiatives that disincentivize Americans of all stripes for the benefit of millionaire/billionaire global elites who are far more similar to their economic peers than they are to Americans with whom they share a skin color.

[1] https://www.jbhe.com/news_views/52_harvard-blackstudents.htm...

The purpose of a system is what it does, design intent does not matter

Reply on news.ycombinator.com