[jskajakzkjx]

I think you’re making a weaker version of this argument than you need to, because you’re framing it in terms that oppose the politics of half of the public, when you really only need to argue against a much more specific set of ideas.

For example:

> Ok, basically she is pissed as AI is picking normal language, that people use, and not using the vocabulary that is in vogue on certain political circles. Basically censure, and forced speech.

I think a stronger version of this argument, which can appeal more broadly, would be: an automated system that is constantly being trained on data from social media can more quickly pick up new trends in human speech than a manually-programmed expert system. Furthermore, even if humans are constantly updating an expert system, the biases inherent in the composition of the company-hired set of experts will limit the representation of minority trends in the data. On the other hand, a model examining the entire data set can pick these up automatically. For example, I can easily get AI Dungeon (powered by GPT-3) to communicate using language and concepts that are only present in a minority community that I’m part of that I’ve rarely seen represented in literature.

When arguing against Timnit Gebru or their ilk, you don’t need to just give them the support of liberals. We actually make up the majority of techies, so it’s a bad position to put yourself in if you want your cause to succeed.

[blueblisters]

> Furthermore, even if humans are constantly updating an expert system, the biases inherent in the composition of the company-hired set of experts will limit the representation of minority trends in the data.

Exactly this. Framing it in terms of alternate options makes AI the more reasonable choice.

Google AI appears to have drawn unnecessary attention to themselves for relatively benign paper. Most of the arguments in this paper have already been discussed elsewhere and could be refuted in simple terms.

[ThomPete]

That really depends on the context you think about this paper in. If you see it as Critical race theory activism (which I do) then it's not benign at all on the contrary it's deeply damaging that Google have well paid people who think they should push their own political agendas through an organization that underlines almost everyone in the wests daily lives.

[e_proxus]

If you see AI as a technological amplifier, it could backfire the other way around. I.e. that the status quo is kept longer than necessary because it is so baked into the technology itself, not only the people who wield it.

I think it is precisely for these reasons this debate is so important, because it is truly not a clear cut improvement in my opinion.