7 ms·

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 effect

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.

mustacheemperor 3y ago
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.
questime 3y ago
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)
astrange 3y ago
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.)

mustacheemperor 3y ago

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.

questime 3y ago

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)

astrange 3y ago

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.)