It appears to be essentially "We promise not to do evil" declaration. It contains things like "Ensure AI eliminates biases in recruitment and does not exclude underrepresented groups.".
What's the point of rejecting this? Seems like a show, just like the declaration itself.
Depending on what side of the things you are, if you don't actually take a look at it you might end up believing that US is planning to do evil and others want to eliminate evil or alternatively you might believe that US is pushing for progress when EU is trying to slow it down.
Both appear false to me, IMHO its just another instance of US signing off from the global world and whatever "evil" US is planning to do China will do it better for cheaper anyway.
So far most AI development has been things like OpenAI making the ChatGPT chatbot and putting it up there for people to play with, likewise Anthropic, Deepseek et all.
I'm worried that declaration is implying you shouldn't be able to do that without trying to "promote social justice by ensuring equitable access to the benefits".
The declarations are very vague as to what will actually be done other than declaring but I get the impression they want to make it more complicated just to put up a chatbot.
I mean stuff like
>We underline the need for a global reflection integrating inter alia questions of safety, sustainable development, innovation, respect of international laws including humanitarian law and human rights law and the protection of human rights, gender equality, linguistic diversity, protection of consumers and of intellectual property rights.
Is quite hard to even parse. Does that mean you'll get grief for you bot speaking English becuase it's not protecting linguistic diversity? I don't know
What does "Sustainable Artificial Intelligence" even mean? That you run it off solar rather than coal? Does it mean anything?
The whole text is just "We promise not to be a-holes" and doesn't demand any specific action anyway, let alone having any teeth.
Useful only when you rejecting it. I'm sure in culture war torn American mind it signals very important things about genitals and ancestry and the industry around these stuff but in a non-American mind it gives you the vibes that the Americans intent to do bad things with AI.
Ha, now I wonder if the people who wrote that were unaware of the situation in US or was that the outcome they expected.
"Given that the Americans not promising not to use this tech for nefarious tasks maybe Europe should de-couple from them?"
It's also a bit woolly on real dangers that governments should maybe worry about.
What if ASI happens next year and and renders most of the human workforce redundant? What if we get Terminator 2? Those might be more worthy of worry than "gender equality, linguistic diversity" etc? I mean the diversity stuff is all very well but not very AI specific. It's like you're developing H-bombs and worrying if they are socially inclusive rather about nuclear war.
My understanding is that this is about using AI responsibly and not about AGI at all. Not worrying about H-bomb but more like worrying about handling radioactive materials in the industry or healthcare to prevent exposure or maybe radium girls happening again.
IMHO, from European perspective, they are worried that someone will install a machine that has bias against let's say Catalan people and they will be disadvantaged against Spaniards and those who operate the machine will claim no fault the computer did it, leading to social unrest. They want to have a regulations saying that you are responsible of this machine and have grounds for its removal if creates issues. All the regulations around AI in EU are in that spirit, they don't actually ban anything.
I don't think AGI is considered seriously by anybody at the moment. That's completely different ball game and if it happens none of the current structures will matter.
I think with a certain crowd just being obstinately oppositional buys you political points whether it's well reasoned or not. IOW they may be acting like jerks here to impress the lets-be-jerks lobby back home.
Yeah I agree, they just threw a tantrum for their local audience. I wonder, why they just don't make AI generate these tantrums instead actually annoying everybody.
> What's the point of rejecting this? Seems like a show, just like the declaration itself. Both appear false to me, IMHO its just another instance of US signing off from the global world...
Hear, hear. If Trump doesn't straighten up, the world might just opt for Chinese leadership. The dictatorship, the genocide, the communism--these are small things that can be overlooked if necessary to secure leadership that's committed to what really matters, which is.... signing pointless declarations.
US just needs to have their culture war done already. These words are not about the American petty fights but it appears that the new government is all for it.
It's kind of fascinating actually how Americans turned the whole pop culture into genitalia regulations and racist wealth redistribution. Before that in EU we had all this stuff and wasn't a problem. These stuff were about minorities and minorities stuff don't bother most people as these are just accommodations for small number of people.
I'm kind of getting sick and tired of pretending that stuff that concern %1 of the people are the mainstream thing. It's insufferable.
It's because people see the manifestation of racism implicit in these policies affecting their daily lives. And they're done with it, no matter how much the elites hand-wave "what's the big deal?" The insufferability runs entirely the other direction.
I'm not so sure. The acceptance of mass migration is rooted in many of the same principles, and push-back on that issue is fundamentally reshaping the political landscape in the UK and Europe.
The rejection of woke ideals goes well beyond the US. The Japanese people also hate elements of woke getting into their culture and they don't even speak English.
It thought you were going to explain how "woke" is a bad thing, and how Japanese were counter progressive stuff.
Instead, you give me two links to the current fascist White House propaganda - which makes me wonder if for you, woke is the exact opposite of "christian"?
And a link about a video game which is... related how to woke/progress or conservative/fascism?
What's peculiar is that we are in a situation where we hold so exactly opposite views about... life. Indoctrinated? I could return the exact same thing to you, from the perspective of someone whose families saw the exact same script play thrice: in Italy, in France and in Germany.
> Also, you need help because you are clearly indoctrinated. Wokeism is not Progressive and Conservatism is not Fascism.
No, clearly, conservatism is not fascism. I come from a European, conservatist family, milieu, education; strict, aristocratic heritage (whatever that means today), catholic. It's not an argument of authority, but I do know pretty well, from the inside, what conservatism is, the pretty parts and the ugly parts. And I know what disguises as such and is not. Fascism is of a twisted one of that kind.
However, you visibly haven't noticed, western conservative minds (in the "West" at least) have been cleverly and patiently hijacked by a fascist, white supremacist ideology that has found luck in some technocratic and aristocratic circles, without which it would have no fund, no tools. Precisely what some fought against to death 80 years ago, they are embracing today. And it is no pure accident.
All that conservatives typically value (for short, Christian, patriotic, traditional values) has been used as bait to lure you and others into giving power to something that is the exact opposite, while thinking in good faith that this is good strategy. Twisting actual facts into their own narrative. Raising segments of the society against each other, rather than trying to reconcile and pacify. And unfortunately, given the order in which the scripts plays out, you may not have the time to be sorry at the time they will turn against you, because all those who could have spoken for you will be gone by then.
What an example? You gave me one:
> If "serving every person with equal dignity and respect", "reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work", and "prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion" are "fascist propaganda" then you need help.
This is double-speak. You take it at face value, of course it's positive and desirable. I would definitely support that. Only, if you look at who's talking, what their history is, what the tone of their speech is, what their skills are, you cannot NOT see what the inter text is.
If you look deep, you'll notice it all leads back to a single first country which is decades ahead of "us" in strategic storytelling, and mass opinion manipulation. The damage to democracy is fast, abyssal, and it will take several decades to fix, if ever.
It will never serve the American people. That's a delusion so enormous it's difficult for most of us in Europe to understand. We saw the exact same script play with the Brexit, and they fell for it (although not as bad as it was planned).
The open question is, was this country capable alone of this level of long-time strategic thinking and coordination, or is it helped by a third one which has mastered this type of thinking for much longer?
All the damage that americans are going to face from now on, as well as probably Europe (Brexit was part of it, Hungary fell for it, so did Italia, France is hardly avoiding a far-right authoritarian take over in 2 years, and so on), is the logical consequence of that hijack in motion. The far-rights already had a rise, but they have seen massive financial and logistical support for the past 10 years.
All I can say is that I'm sorry you bought in the Republicans (or whatever is behind) propaganda and hope you'll stay open to the conversation, wherever it happens on your side, and come back some day from the very, very dark place that is ahead.
There's definitely deep difference in the understanding that comes from a USA person and from a European person. "wokeism" is a clever made-up tag, again, because, as it's not a definite notion, you can swipe a lot of things under it, as a lot of you have done with "socialism" or "communism". But it likely means actually nothing at all.
As for "woke", as it means a different thing historically, and is more difficult to take over by the far-right, I guess we don't put the same value into it.
Gosh, you have no idea how far I am from the left in France. And how far I am from the far-right too. It’s not even on the same axis… but to chose between Le Pen (Putin puppet, as is Trump) or Melenchon (Putin puppet as well), I know who I chose because of the team that goes with it, and the balance it gives to the institutions and which one will allow for a return to democracy and which one will trigger a bloody civil war.
Visibly, your refusal to consider a different point of view, your incapacity to argue for your own leads you down a single possible path and Trump gave you the perfect excuses and means for it.
Your perception of history is totally skewed from your lens.
Please don't cross into breaking the site guidelines yourself, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. It only makes things worse.
People who at one point in the past related to the Democrat Party and the Left but no longer do through no particular changes of their own.
>Gosh, you have no idea how far I am from the left in France. And how far I am from the far-right too.
Indeed I have no idea how far you are from the Far Right: You are quite literally calling liberal values like equality "fascist". You are at least so far from the Far Right that ostensibly Center and Left values are Far Right for you.
You need to realize how absurd you are being.
>Visibly, your refusal to consider a different point of view, your incapacity to argue for your own leads you down a single possible path and Trump gave you the perfect excuses and means for it. Your perception of history is totally skewed from your lens.
You are projecting your own behavior upon me (and others). Get some help, my dude.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Not cool.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Just to clarify, when you said "this account" did you mean me or the person I was conversing with?
EDIT: Seeing as I can post a comment I'm going to guess you meant the latter, but I would appreciate clarification if you don't mind.
EDIT the second: It seems I am shadowbanned, so I'll leave an email I guess. It saddens me that an American entity (Hacker News) doesn't support American values, though.
I meant you. You broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly, and we'd asked you more than once to stop doing this.
I did post a moderation reply to the person you were interacting with (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43042302), but they didn't break the guidelines nearly as badly as you did.
In no uncertain terms, the only guideline I've violated as far as I'm aware is the one stipulating no political battles. As far as that, I defer to your judgment with one contention: Everyone else who were and are also engaging in that behaviour should be similarly reprimanded.
As I've written in my email, I've noticed a significant uptick in political threads and subthreads over the past month for fairly obvious reasons. If you are that adamant about the guideline, and that is your right, I hope you police all such (sub)threads much more vigorously in the future.
In closing, I'm just sad at the true colors of this community. I take supporting racism personally as a Japanese-American, and all the other positions like supporting fraud, wanton waste, and selective enforcement of laws (aka social justice) are downright absurd. We will inevitably have differences in our beliefs, but I expected better from a community of hackers and entrepreneurs/investors who would presumably support liberal (libre) values and fiscal responsibility.
"you are clearly not worth the oxygen you consume" is obviously against the site guidelines. Ditto for "Please get help, you are indoctrinated and incapable of holding a useful conversation", "You are projecting your own behavior upon me (and others). Get some help, my dude", and so on.
USA-style Republican today? The thing is… if they were upholding the Constitution, right now, I could name one.
Frankly, all that emerges from the brouhaha coming from the USA sounds like The Onion headlines on steroids. Looks like the alternate reality movies from the Man in the High Castle. Unreal.
McCain could have saved something in the party back then, but the party chose otherwise…
And seeing how a conversation is not even possible anymore…
How does one rationalize electing these people? How does one get radicalized to that point? The very same playbook is run, again, and again. And it never resulted in peace and harmony through history. Never.
Those words are about precisely American culture war issues. It exported the culture war abroad years ago.
It isn't about what % of the population is affected or number of people. It is about PRINCIPLES. Yes it matters just as much to enshrine dishonesty in law if it is dishonesty abour 1 person or 1000 people or 1m people. It matters.
Funny how principes are unevenly distributed too...
Like, by the same principles (called, the law), the man that you made your president today should have been in jail for months, if not years; or, as in any decent democracy, should not have been able to run with so many pending lawsuits (hey, principles).
But, somehow, he got a pass. And he got elected, so that gave him another pass. And now he disrupts the principles he's supposed to uphold (a thing called the Constitution). And he gets another pass.
The dominant "principle" at work in American politics domestically and in foreign relations and trade today is only this: "might makes right."
As their neighbours to the north we recognize this as always having been there in the form of "manifest destiny" and talk of "God's Favoured Nation" and "greatest nation on earth" and so on, and were on the receiving end of this mindset in 1812 and prior and other times... but there's also always been (small-l) liberal counter-veiling forces that led to a more just balance and the encouragement of trade and legality and constitutionality and cultural interchange over dominance and control (for some).
What we've seen from the American people is that at least 50% of them now want those guard rails completely removed. I see it all over comments sections on social media now. A bully mentality. Appeals to justice or sanity are met with a Nelson Muntz "ha-ha" and "what are you going to do about it?"
I completely understand you as a European. I see the same thing, here, on social media, in some newspapers, even in some family.
After WWII, we had found kind of an agreement of balance, and a dynamic indeed to institute legality and coordination across nations for peace and progress. And the USA were the foundation and support of that, almost even as if it had been its mission. No wonder UN is based in New York for that matter.
The most striking is the pace at which this unfolds.
It's hard to feel hopeful, but hard to feel hopeless too. It's like grief. Something is broken and lost forever, but also, with darkness comes clarity of where the light comes from. So resolute to speak up and organise, yes.
I don't know of any reason why having some convictions should prevent you from running for political office. That would make it too easy to prevent your political opponents from running for office in any system where there is some political influence over prosections. That is exactly what happened to Trump! His so-called "felony convictions" were for misdemeanor offences and it was a transparently politically motivated prosecution. It likely backfired and helped him get electes.
Why would you need such a rule anyway? If the convictions were disqualifying, the candidate would be unelectable. It is up to the electorate who wins the election.
He certainly hasn't done anything I am aware of to deserve to be in prison for years.
I don't see any evidence that he is ignoring the constitution. Do you apply the same standard to every president or governor that has signed blatantly unconstitutional gun control legislation? People test the boundaries of the constitution all the time. When Trump does it, he is held to a different standard.
> in any system where there is some political influence over prosections.
That's why you got to trust your democracy, and in the balance and independence of each branch; and work on maintaining that trust. If you ever get your trust broken in the institutions, it's all downhill from there. It's a constant effort.
> It is up to the electorate who wins the election.
That point of view makes might prevail over law. Doing so invites corruption, systematically. And that's precisely not how a democracy works.
> If the convictions were disqualifying, the candidate would be unelectable.
I don't know how you can judge a character morally and strength-fit for presidency, of someone paying a prostitute to shut up about it, and denying having done so when caught. It's a telling trait for someone vulnerable to corruption or kompromat. That single bit alone should be a basic repellant (it would be a matter of dismissal for any high ranking public service officer, and for any CEO), but... obviously not for everyone.
See, in France, we've had our own corruption issues (and still have some, it's a constant struggle too). And finally, hopefully, a past president has been convicted recently (Sarkozy). And boy, as much as I have trusted this guy, and voted for him, twice, as much am I relieved that the justice made things clear: being a president does not make you apart, you get to live by the same rules as everyone. I'm relieved too because it revealed how much the right and hard-right in France are against the independence of the judiciary breach, while unfunding it (for obvious reasons), and how it opened my eyes: democracy is so, so far from a given. And it's been a terrible realisation that today, you have the right fighting actively against democracy, the left not realising and complacent about it, the center about the same, and the far-right and far-left just waiting for it to fall.
> I don't see any evidence that he is ignoring the constitution.
Ok. Cool. Obviously we don't read the same events. See you in 4 years then. I promise I won't ever come to the USA (to your relief). And, believe it or not, I promise I will eat at least a piece of my hat if there is a next election and if Trump concedes willingly and peacefully to the result then.
> Do you apply the same standard to every president or governor
I am not defending any other president, I'm telling on yours, right now.
> that has signed blatantly unconstitutional gun control legislation?
You're telling on yourself right there, on a different plane. The USA is the only country in the world that has such a permissive regulation on fire arms, with an equally permissive and disdainful result in civil casualties. Yemen comes next.
> You're telling on yourself right there, on a different plane. The USA is the only country in the world that has such a permissive regulation on fire arms, with an equally permissive and disdainful result in civil casualties. Yemen comes next.
The world would be a much better place if everyone had a gun and not fear for reprisals from law enforcement when it is used to defend itself/family and bystanders. Like to have the Castle doctrine everywhere with a very very low threshold.
We have a balanced and proportionate self-defence law here, and that is way enough. With the Castle doctrine, we would build up an issue that is non-existent in the first place. We don't want to be a violent society, that's a choice.
>That's why you got to trust your democracy, and in the balance and independence of each branch; and work on maintaining that trust. If you ever get your trust broken in the institutions, it's all downhill from there. It's a constant effort.
But they aren't trustworthy. That is the point. The US system sucks. Elected judges. Elected prosecutors. Elected police commissioners. Clear pressure from above in the federal justice department. President-appointed politicised courts. It is nuts. The US justice system is political. It is not independent from politics. It is not designed to be.
It is so funny to me you say "trust your democracy" then argue why the person that got the most votes shouldn't be allowed to be elected. That is trusting democracy? Democracy is elected leaders. Democracy isn't always good (see above) but it isn't ambiguous.
>> It is up to the electorate who wins the election.
>That point of view makes might prevail over law. Doing so invites corruption, systematically. And that's precisely not how a democracy works.
This is blatant double speak, how do you not see that? Democracy is when the most votes wins the election. He didn't cheat to get those votes. His victory was legitimate.
Why would it invite corruption for voters to choose who wins elections?!
>I don't know how you can judge a character morally and strength-fit for presidency, of someone paying a prostitute to shut up about it, and denying having done so when caught. It's a telling trait for someone vulnerable to corruption or kompromat. That single bit alone should be a basic repellant (it would be a matter of dismissal for any high ranking public service officer, and for any CEO), but... obviously not for everyone.
Because it isn't up to me. It isn't up to you. It isn't up to a judge. It is up to the electorate. The voters balance all the factors and make a decision. Is he perfect? Of course not. But it isn't a choice between him and perfection, and the voters picked him over the other options. That is all the qualifications required (well, and being 35 and being American by birth).
>See, in France, we've had our own corruption issues (and still have some, it's a constant struggle too). And finally, hopefully, a past president has been convicted recently (Sarkozy). And boy, as much as I have trusted this guy, and voted for him, twice, as much am I relieved that the justice made things clear: being a president does not make you apart, you get to live by the same rules as everyone.
I don't think anyone wants corruption.
>I'm relieved too because it revealed how much the right and hard-right in France are against the independence of the judiciary breach, while unfunding it (for obvious reasons), and how it opened my eyes: democracy is so, so far from a given. And it's been a terrible realisation that today, you have the right fighting actively against democracy, the left not realising and complacent about it, the center about the same, and the far-right and far-left just waiting for it to fall.
I don't know much about France but it seems to be functioning democratically. In Germany though it is the left fighting democracy, constantly demanding that AfD be banned from competing in elections because they are terrified of losing their grip on power and the leverage they have over the CDU/CSU by forcing them to always compromise to the left and not to the right. It has boosted AfD in the long run by making it impossible for the CDU to pass popular migration controls that are desperately needed. Yet if you ask the left they say they are "defending democracy", by banning parties! "Orwellian" is overused but here it is the only word that fits.
>You're telling on yourself right there, on a different plane. The USA is the only country in the world that has such a permissive regulation on fire arms, with an equally permissive and disdainful result in civil casualties. Yemen comes next.
The USA has a constitution. It guarantees gun ownership rights absolutely ("shall not be infringed"). The courts have been clear on this for decades. I don't think it is a good rule, but it is the constitution.
Notice how on this topic you immediately stop talking about the constitution? You start talking about policy merits. What happened to the importance of respecting the constitution now that it says something you don't agree with?
He is not my president, btw. I am not American. Not that it should make any difference.
> But they aren't trustworthy. That is the point. The US system sucks.
That has been the discourse of Trump there for years. His platform was based on instillating further and nurturing this perception. Instead of encouraging Republicans to work themselves AND with the left to improve what can be, carefully, progressively, on a rational basis (which is ... the basis of democracy), they've gone full rogue and decided to break it. To rebuild it as a better democracy? Not what it looks like, given both domestic and international situation, and the history and discourse of the man. But I would love to be proved wrong here.
> Democracy is when the most votes wins the election.
No. That is only a part of what a democracy is. If 51% of people voted to kill the other 49%, that would democratic? Of course not.
A democracy requires a Rule of Law, and the protection of fundamental rights for all. It requires three, balanced, separate, opposed branches of power; executive (presidency) is only one of these, not above the two others. It requires protection for minorities.
If all you have is the expression of the majority of the votes, that's not one, that's the tyranny of the majority and that's a completely different, violent system.
> I don't think anyone wants corruption.
No one wants to be corrupted in the first place. Yet, it exists. That's precisely the reason for a democratic system where each branch of a government must have the tools to lawfully take down those from opposing branches that are corrupt or exceed the power they are given.
> I don't know much about France but it seems to be functioning democratically.
We'll see.
Reading you, I get what you're saying, as there are people on the right in France holding roughly the same view... Only... if the AfD wins, is it going to be so different than the previous far-right parties have done? (there, in France, in Hungary, in Italy, in the USA, in Russia?)
Rather than the fear of the loss of a grip on power, what I see the fear of the loss of democracy itself and basic principles. It's the so called paradox of tolerance, and the cognitive dissonance that goes with it, at play.
The curious thing is that you Germans always have seemed to be good at negotiation and consensus, at least, compared to us French, where preventive opposition seems to be a too common rule of negotiations. When did that capacity change on your side?
The only ways out I see is a left majority demonstrating actually to the country both: the advantages of immigration (if only for the democraphics that won't support the country otherwise) and the perils of it if not managed accordingly, and enacting effective actionable laws about it.
Why a left? Because the right is incapable of getting rid of hidden far-right ambitions (we have our owns here) that spoil any project or the discussion by getting to racist/supremacist/antisocial tropes.
Will it happen? In France at least, no, the left is not ready for that exercise. The far-left is not helping the left itself, being even more rigid and killing attempts to have a negotiated government.
Will a moderate right succeed to do it? Neither. They're too busy to find a way to survive.
So, a hard right or more likely a far-right? The problem here is that these extremes that acquire the power, even if they do succeed to improve some things, once in power, they will not concede it, they never did in history.
Ultimately, who does all that mess serve?
> Notice how on this topic you immediately stop talking about the constitution? You start talking about policy merits. What happened to the importance of respecting the constitution now that it says something you don't agree with?
I'm not playing ;) I shifted the point there to policy (I could have avoided, true, it dilutes the conversation) because that point of the Constitution is respected/not at stake at all, whatever happens to the state. Contrary to the fundamentals of a democracy.
It definitely is shallow. It's on par with saying they used cringe language that is like, not a vibe. It doesn't mean anything concrete, and so it's impossible to rebuke and pointless to talk about.
Do you mean this or the response to it? How does one respond to fluff like this?
> AI’s workplace impact must align governance, social dialogue, innovation, trust, fairness, and public interest. We commit to advancing the AI Paris Summit agenda, reducing inequalities, promoting diversity, tackling gender imbalances, increasing training and human capital investment
This being culturally rejected by the same America that has itself twice rejected women candidates for president in favour of a man who now has 34 felony convictions, does not surprise me.
But it does disappoint me.
I remember when the right wing were complaining about Star Trek having a woman as a captain for the first time with Voyager. That there had already been women admirals on screen by that point suggested they had not actually watched it, and I thought it was silly.
I remember learning that British politician Ann Widdecombe changed from Church of England to Roman Catholic, citing that the "ordination of women was the last straw", and I thought it was silly.
Back then, actually putting effort into equal opportunity for all was called "political correctness gone mad" by those opposed to it — but I guess the attention span is no longer sufficient to use four-word-phrases as rhetorical applause lights, so y'all switched to a century old word coined by African Americans who wanted to make sure they didn't forget that the Civil War had only ended literal slavery, not changed the attitudes behind it.
This history makes the word itself a very odd thing to encounter in Europe, where we didn't have that civil war — forced end of Empire shortly after World War 2, yes, but none of the memes from the breakaway regions of that era even made it back to this continent, and AFAICT "woke" wasn't one of them anyway. I only know I'm called a "mzungu" by Kenyans because of the person who got me to visit the place.
The current state if affairs is that the left want equality without competence.
The EU is even more nuts with their plans that all big companies in the EU should have 50/50 men-women representation in the board of directors.
Believe what you want, but America did not reject Hillary or Kamala because they were women, they rejected them because of their incompetence. And speaking of this, after seeing Kamala talk, it is beyond me how she got to be VP - not one coherent sentence comes out of her mouth.
> That fact that you think this is "nuts" tells me you think women aren't equally competent.
No, it means that I want people in those places based on competency, not gender, and certainly not 50/50 representation because some bureaucrats think equality should be forced down on people's throats. If you make it about gender or anything else, the problem lies with you.
> And yet you elected Trump.
Well, besides the "beautiful" over use, he actually made sense when he was talking. The word salads Kamala kept making...
> No, it means that I want people in those places based on competency, not gender, and certainly not 50/50 representation because some bureaucrats think equality should be forced down on people's throats.
If you think that the current hiring discrepancy represents a genuine and real skill discrepancy, it is a logical necessity for you think that women are not equally capable.
Conversely, if you think women are equally capable, then you must think that the hiring discrepancy is not justified by competency. If you get this far, then it follows that there is a huge opportunity for increasing the pool of competent leaders by requiring 50/50. As they do actually have a goal of increasing the economic potential of the region, this means they should push the issue.
> Well, besides the "beautiful" over use, he actually made sense when he was talking. The word salads Kamala kept making...
To quote one of many examples, this one about Biden at the beach in Trump’s Georgia response to the State of the Union:
“Somebody said he looks great in a bathing suit, right? And you know, when he was in the sand and he was having a hard time lifting his feet through the sand, because you know sand is heavy, they figured three solid ounces per foot, but sand is a little heavy, and he’s sitting in a bathing suit. Look, at 81, do you remember Cary Grant? How good was Cary Grant, right? I don’t think Cary Grant, he was good. I don’t know what happened to movie stars today. We used to have Cary Grant and Clark Gable and all these people. Today we have, I won’t say names, because I don’t need enemies. I don’t need enemies. I got enough enemies. But Cary Grant was, like – Michael Jackson once told me, ‘The most handsome man, Trump, in the world.’ ‘Who?’ ‘Cary Grant.’ Well, we don’t have that any more, but Cary Grant at 81 or 82, going on 100. This guy, he’s 81, going on 100. Cary Grant wouldn’t look too good in a bathing suit, either. And he was pretty good-looking, right?”
Covfefe. Heck, that one became a meme so hard it has its own Wikipedia page.
Trump's confusion and rambling is broadcast across the world, and mocked across the world — that's how I even know about it. Similar with GWB's… well, Bushisms.
I've seen two relatives get Alzheimer's, and have been on the other end of a phone line with a third when they, mid-sentence, started talking as if I was my brother, speaking of me like I wasn't there, telling him how I was doing.
> If you think that the current hiring discrepancy represents a genuine and real skill discrepancy, it is a logical necessity for you think that women are not equally capable.
I believe they are not equally interested in the same fields men are and vice-versa. So I don't see any value in forcing women and men to fields which they don't want to be in.
> Conversely, if you think women are equally capable, then you must think that the hiring discrepancy is not justified by competency. If you get this far, then it follows that there is a huge opportunity for increasing the pool of competent leaders by requiring 50/50. As they do actually have a goal of increasing the economic potential of the region, this means they should push the issue.
I think they are equally capable in certain areas, and less capable in other areas. Just like men are less capable in some areas and more capable in others. It's how nature works, nothing sexist or discriminatory about it. Just like two men are not equal, or two women are not equal.
But trying to forcefully push the narrative that somehow men and women are 100% equal is very detrimental to everyone involved.
You might be interested to learn that Trump's cabinet has at least 9 women, one of whom was the Governor of South Dakota, another who was an Attorney-General of Florida, and another who is a reserve duty Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army.
Most Senate Democrats have voted against their respective confirmations, by the way.
We are quite fine having women as leaders if they are actually competent and charismatic like it would be the case with men. Neither HRC nor Harris were that; the former was reviled and the latter couldn't even speak coherently. The Democrats can easily get a woman elected President if they would simply choose a good candidate with policies that resonate with the electorate.
Sustainable Development? Protect the environment? Promote social justice? Equitable access? Driving inclusive growth? Eliminating biases? Not excluding underrepresented groups?
These are not the values the American people voted for. Americans selected a president who is against "equity", "inclusion" and "social justice", and who is more "roman salute" oriented.
Of course this is all very disorienting to non-Americans, as a year or two ago efforts to do things like rename git master branches to main and blacklists to denylists also seemed to be driven by Americans. But that's just America's modern cultural dominance in action; it's a nation with the most pornographers and the most religious anti-porn campaigners at the same time; the home of Hollywood beauty standards, plastic surgery and bodybuilding, but also the home of fat acceptance and the country with the most obesity. So in a way, contradictory messages are nothing new.
>Americans selected a president who is against "equity", "inclusion" and "social justice"
Indeed. Our American values are and always have been Equality, Pursuit of Happiness, and legal justice respectively, as declared in our Declaration of Independence[1] and Constitution[2], even if there were and will be complications along the way.
Liberty is power, power is responsibility. Noone ever said living free was going to be easy, but everyone will say it's a fulfilling life.
Then why don't you do all that but instead treating people who are in pursuit of happiness as criminals for example? Why do you need the paperwork and bureaucracy to let people pursue happiness?
The US is a sovereign nation which has a right to defend its borders from illegal invaders. Try to enter or stay in Singapore illegally and see what happens to you.
Quite literally any country with a government worth talking about controls entry of foreign nationals. It is a privilege to enter another country as a foreigner, and that country has every sovereign right to deny you that privilege if they so choose for any reason (usually citing their laws).
The fact that you ignore this demonstrates your bad will in engaging in these conversations.
Good to hear. What are you doing to demolish the visa regime that actually doesn't allow all that? Do you have an ETA for the day when anybody who enters USA will be able to seek employment or start a company or do whatever they want in their pursuit of happiness?
I was worried that you are advocating for work visas, permits, green cards ect, like a silly EU country would do.
In other words pursuit of happiness through bureaucracy. Hope Musk keeps enough of those who pick who can pursue happiness in US then. Otherwise the pursuit of happiness will be pretty slow.
Anyway, IMHO you are putting too much trust in the abilities and importance of bureaucrats or maybe you want them to do the dirt work so you can feel good for yourself and pretend that you like the American way of life(the right of pursuit of happiness kind of things) but secretly want to be European(the bureaucracy that keeps out the undesirables)?
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." (+)
(+) terms and conditions apply; did not originally apply to nonwhite men or women. Hence allowing things like the mass internment of Americans of Japanese ethnicity.
> We are also talking much more rightly about equity,
>it has to be about a goal of saying everybody should end up in the same place. And since we didn’t start in the same place. Some folks might need more: equitable distribution
This is arguing for giving certain people more benefits versus others based on their race and gender.
This mindset is dangerous, especially if you codify it into an automated system like an AI and let it make decisions for you. It is literally the definition of institutional discrimination.
It is good that we are avoiding codifying racism into our AI under the fake moral guise of “equity”
Its not. What we currently have is institutional discrimination and Trump is trying to make it much worse. Making sure AI doesn't reflect or worsen current societal racism is a massive issue
At my job I am not allowed to offer a job to a candidate unless I have first demonstrated to the VP of my org that I have interviewed a person or color.
This is literally the textbook definition of discrimination based on skin color and it is done under the guise of “equity”.
It is literally defined in the civil rights act as illegal (title VII).
It is very good that the new administration is doing away with it.
So did your company interview any people of color before? It seems like your org recognizes their own racism and is taking steps to fight that. Good on them at least if they occasionally hire some of them and aren't just covering their asses.
You don't seem to understand either letter of the spirit of the civil rights act.
You're happy that a racist president who campaigned on racism and keeps on baselely accusing people who are members of minority groups of being unqualified while himself being the least qualified president in history is trying to encourage people to not hire minorities? Why exactly?
2. Candidate applies and interviews, team likes them and wants to move forward
3. Team not allowed to offer because candidate is not diverse enough
4. Team goes and interviews a diverse person.
Now if we offer the person of color a job, the first person was discriminated against because they would have got the job if they had had the right skin color.
If we don’t offer the diverse person a job, then the whole thing was purely performative because the only other outcome was discrimination.
This is how it works at my company.
Go read Title VII of the civil rights act, this is expressly against both the letter and spirit of the law.
BTW calling everything you disagree with racism doesn’t work anymore, nobody cares if you think he campaigned on racism (he didn’t).
If anything, people pushing this equity stuff are the real racists.
Edit after reading about Trump firing the people administering our nuclear weapons: God damn Donald Trump, and God damn the people who are so foolish to believe the the disinformation networks that tell them Donald Trump isn't working to destroy this country.
Men are created equal, but not identical. That's why you should aim for equal chance, but shouldn't try to force equal results. Affirmative actions and such are stupid and I'm glad Trump is getting rid of them.
I live in a country that has had a very successful programme of affirmative action, following roughly three generations of open, systemic racism (Maori school students where kept out of university and the professions as a matter of public policy)
Now we are starting to get Maori doctors and lawyers that is transforming our society - for the better IMO
That was because the law and medical schools went out of their way to recruit Maori students. To start with they were hard to find as nobody in their families (being Maori, and forbidden) had been to university
If you do not do anything about where people start then saying "aim for equal chance" can become a tool of oppression and keeping the opportunities for those who already have them.
Nuance is useful. I have heard many bizarre stories out of the USA about people blindly applying DEI with not much thought or planning. But there are many many places where carefully applied policies have made everybody's life better
This is always the Motte & Bailey of the left. "Equity" doesn't mean you recruit better. It means when your recruitment efforts fail to produce the outcomes you want, you lower the barriers on the basis of skin color. That's the racism that America is presently rejecting, and very forcefully.
NZ does not have a "successful programme of affirmative action".
Discrimination in favour of Maori students largely has benefited the children of Maori professionals and white people with a tiny percentage of Maori ancestry who take advantage of this discriminatory policy.
The Maori doctors and lawyers coming through these discriminatory programmes are not the people they were intended to target. Meanwhile, poor white children are essentially abandoned by the school system.
Maori were never actually excluded from university study, by the way. Maori were predominantly rural and secondary education was poor in rural areas but it has nothing to do with their ethnicity. They were never "forbidden". There have been Maori lawyers and doctors for as long as NZ has had universities.
For example, take Sir Apirana Ngata. He studied at a university in NZ in the 1890s, around the same time women got the vote. He was far from the first.
What you have alleged is a common narrative so I don't blame you for believing it but it is a lie.
> Maori were never actually excluded from university study, by the way
Māori schools (which the vast majority of Māori attended) were forbidden by the education department from teaching the subjects that lead to matriculation. So yes, they were forbidden from going to university.
> Sir Apirana Ngata. He studied at a university in NZ in the 1890s,
That was before the rules were changed. It was because of people like Ngata and Buck that the system was changed. The racists that ran the government were horrified that the natives were doing better than the colonialists. They "fixed" it.
> Discrimination in favour of Maori students largely has benefited the children of Maori professionals
It has helped establish traditions of tertiary study in Māori families, starting in the 1970s
There are plenty of working class Māori (I know a few) that used the system to get access. (The quota for Māori students in the University of Auckland's law school was not filled in the 1990s. Many more applied for it, but if their marks were sufficient to get in without using the quota they were not counted. If it were not for the quota many would not have even applied)
Talking of lies: "white people with a tiny percentage of Maori ancestry who take advantage of this" that is a lie.
The quotas are not based on ethnicity solely. To qualify you had to whakapapa (whāngi children probably qualified even if they did not whakapapa, I do not know), but you also had to be culturally Māori.
Lies and bigotry are not extinct in Aotearoa, but they are in retreat. The baby boomers are very disorientated, but the millennials are loving it.
"eliminates biases in recruitment and does not exclude underrepresented groups" has turned out to basically mean "higher less qualified candidates in the name of more equitable outcomes", which is a very contentious position to take and one many Americans strongly oppose.
No it means eliminates biases in recruitment and to not exclude underrepresented groups
We still have massive biases against minorities in our countries. Some people prefer to pretend they don't exist so they can justify the current reality.
Nothing related to Trump has anything to do with qualified candidates, Trump is the least qualified president we have ever had in american history. Not just because he hadn't served in government or as a general but because he is generally unaware about how government works and doesn't care to be informed.
In other words they get triggered from words that don't mean that thing. Sounds like EU should develop a politically correct language for Americans. That's synthetic Woke, which is ironic.
I wonder if the new Woke should be called Neo-Woke, where you pretend to be mean to certain group of people to accommodate other group of people who suffered from accommodating another group of people.
IMHO all this needs to be gone and just be like "don't discriminate, be fair" but hey I'm not the trend setter.
It appears to be essentially "We promise not to do evil" declaration. It contains things like "Ensure AI eliminates biases in recruitment and does not exclude underrepresented groups.".
What's the point of rejecting this? Seems like a show, just like the declaration itself.
Depending on what side of the things you are, if you don't actually take a look at it you might end up believing that US is planning to do evil and others want to eliminate evil or alternatively you might believe that US is pushing for progress when EU is trying to slow it down.
Both appear false to me, IMHO its just another instance of US signing off from the global world and whatever "evil" US is planning to do China will do it better for cheaper anyway.