Transactivists may actually have doomed us all.

[TaytoCheeseandOnion]

I am reading the Coming Wave, a book by one of the founders of Google DeepMind warning about how unprepared we are for the potential hazards of AI (really recommend it).

There is a chapter on how we must start to build in regulation and safety features to contain the technology and prevent/delay catastrophe.

The author tried to introduce a completely independent AI ethics council within Google.

They appointed Kay Coles James, president of a Conservative think tank. She was accused of being transphobic (for saying that is men can be defined as women then it becomes impossible to defend womens rights).

Google transactivists then attacked other board members, particularly academics, trying to get their funding removed. Three resigned and the board collapsed. So, we now have no ethical oversight of AI in google.

These lot are really fucking dangerous.

Oops links would help
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/04/google-deepmind-ai-artificial-intelligence-ethics-group-problems

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/business/ai-ethics-lgbtq-google

It's depressing isn't it? And yes to observing that transactivists are fucking dangerous. Intent on removing safeguarding, facts and science from public discourse, the law and relationships - all to the detriment of women and children.

And people either can't or won't see how dangerous that movement is.

The problem is the TRA movement just don't care about anything other than themselves and their own self-absorbed narcissistic wants.

Look at how they hijacked black lives matter and suddenly "black trans lives matter" was everywhere, which was basically another iteration of the "all lives matter" everyone vilified given that neither George Floyd nor Breonna Taylor were trans, and it was a nasty self-centred way to co-opt an important US social justice moment (although I'm sure somewhere has probably run an article with someone's friend's cousin's hairdresser who swears blind George was she/her and Breonna was he/them).

Look at how they have zero empathy for detransitioners whereas if a word of their Kool Aid was true they would be raising those people up, supporting them, and doing everything necessary to ensure the right person was in the right gender. TRAs don't even care about actual transpeople.

Look at them. Look at what they do. They are a force of total chaos and disruption who have nothing to offer society in any way shape or form.

It's happening all over the place.

They ruin everything they touch.

A Jewish online women's magazine/forum I read is now awash with them. I warned the editors but they said they were an "inclusive" community. Then, quel surprise, on a post yesterday about believing Israeli women who were raped, all of these lovely TRAs started denying their experience and basically saying they deserved it for being white oppressors.

SMH.

Reading the links, it seems to be suggesting that James did more than make a "transphobic" comment. She is described as anti-immigration, anti LGBT (not just the T) and conservative, which I guess means right wing in US terms. Is she someone we should be defending?
Although, absolutely we need oversight into AI technology, we are sleepwalking into Skynet.

Or put boundaries around very unacceptable behaviour IF the person involved has anything to do with TQ+ politics.

What does anti LGBT even mean these days? Stonewall is probably the loudest and most homophobic voice at the moment in that they openly call homosexuality 'sexual racism' while claiming to speak FOR homosexuals.

As soon as you get hoovered up into the 'well that was a bad person so it doesn't matter that everyone behaved badly, don't look at that any deeper' you've disappeared into the vat of purity politics in which anyone who is Good and Righteous is entitled to do whatever they want regardless of how right/true and ethical it is, and anyone speaking against who is not found wholly righteous must be damned and condemned to the fiery pits of hell regardless of whether or not what they were saying made sense, was true and had anything important within the content.

We're heading back into medieval morality, it's grim. And it's exactly what is enabling things like this: that a sane voice is disposed of and a committee that would have been useful falls apart because someone started the purity wittering.

The problem is if the oversight boards all have people who all think the same, then we're going to end up with big problems.

Quite.

Are we into diversity of thinking these days? Diversity of opinion?

Or are we just having the damned and the righteous? Because a fuckton of the righteous appear to have no grip on reality and are zealoted past being able to find their bum with both hands, never mind actually do anything useful.

They'll share pronouns and badges and flags like nobody's business but that doesn't do much of any real practical, functional use.

I don't know the person who was targeted. I do however fully endorse the need to have people with different views points, even those i vehemently disagree with, contributing to important work such as oversight of AI. Echo chambers are dangerous.

I don't know the person who was targeted. I do however fully endorse the need to have people with different views points, even those i vehemently disagree with, contributing to important work such as oversight of AI. Echo chambers are dangerous.

This.

Isn't it just a category error to think that a debate about ethics can only involve people with correct opinions?

We need ethics to accommodate people with different political interests and opinions (provided they're WORIADS).

Or are we just having the damned and the righteous?

This is causing serious problems in schools in the US with students whipped up by TikTok to demand that everyone there must be pro-Palestine, or in some cases pro-Hamas, and going on a rampage if they don't comply. It's blind obedience to the oppressor-oppressed model in action and is ugly to watch.

In this day and age "anti-lgbtq" could just mean "doesn't 100% go along with trans ideology" and "anti-immigration" could just mean "doesn't want 100% open borders". Beyond the name calling is there any detail about her position on these issues? I couldn't see any detail. I never believe name calling like this any more unless I can see what the person has actually said and in the context of which it was said.