It's quite incredible how hating men have been not only normalized but institutionalized in the last few years. Changing a single word in that kind of headlines would give a strong 1933 vibe.
It's not so much about hating men as it is an increase in people claiming they are a victim of something. Being a victim gives them feelings of power and control, even if it is completely hogwash.
Sure, but that is denying the reality of the moment / endorsing the fantasies of the past. I fail to see how pointing out the actual reality of hiring statistics correlates at all the fascist conspiracy theory. This is not "hating men".
How many women did they have with the same qualifications as the men? How many women work the same amount of hours? How many women even applied for the job?
My local kindergarten also only has women. Guess why?
It's not really about equality, as no one is complaining about men doing the most dangerous and laborious jobs, as mining, forestry, saturation diving etc. According to most reports, men are more than 20 times more likely to die at work.
People need to be less outraged. Look at the situation and figure out what would allow the UK/EU to get on par with the US in terms of AI.
If diversity would achieve it, then do that, if homogeneity would achieve that, then do that.
Personally, I think they need to figure out what their main goal is. Is it diversification in this one area, or is it parity/supremacy in this one area and then go from there. One cannot serve two masters.
I've read the whole thing but the fact that the argument isn't "more qualified female candidates were overlooked" tells me the Institute made the correct decision.
1. There is a relatively stable job opening with diversity requirements. The 'diverse' hire is made.
2. The 'non-diverse' candidates for the position end up not getting the job. While seemingly inconsequential on its own, this has the effect of 'non-diverse' candidates being over-represented among those who are overqualified for their current position.
3. In order to get a more suitable position for their abilities, these 'non-diverse' candidates are forced to work on higher risk projects, maybe lacking the same prestige, as the position in (1).
4. Due to their ability, these riskier projects take off. Now the risk was higher, so the reward is commensurately higher.
5. As these projects mature and grow and attract more money, they start to have job openings similar to 1.
6. Charges of discrimination are made when only 'non-diverse' candidates seemed to have benefited from this novel technology. And likely those same candidates in 2 are now forced out as more jobs like 1 are opened up in the projects they grew in 4. Then the start at step 3 again.
Personally, I have absolutely seen this play out with AI. I was in the industry before all the LLM / NVDA buzz. Many people thought it was crazy, a pipe dream, etc. Now... everyone wants in and is retconning their stories to talk about how they always supported it. Give me a break.
This reflects my career path as well. I worked for a large company and I was impacted by Step 2. Left for a startup (step 3), startup takes off with a competing technology. Fast forward a couple of years, the large company drops technology I was working in at the time as they couldn't compete with the startup (step 4). Startup is now a leader in that technology and is now a more attractive workpalce than the large company. There are now complaints that the leaders with tenure are non-diverse at the startup. We've reached stage 5.
Surely a person's sex or race isn't the most significant factor that would give someone a different perspective. Why is it that we must seek alternatives primarily along the sex and race axes, at the exact same time that we're being told that differences in those dimensions don't matter?
If we want different perspectives, then let's look for people that are urban vs suburban, religious vs atheist, short vs tall, active vs sedentary, sports fans vs those who would rather read a book, listeners of classical music vs country, those who served in the military vs pacifists, and so on. Why tell ourselves that the most important "diversity" we need is to be found in sex/gender and race?
gwervc|2 years ago
Ajay-p|2 years ago
chabes|2 years ago
alxjrvs|2 years ago
moi2388|2 years ago
How many women did they have with the same qualifications as the men? How many women work the same amount of hours? How many women even applied for the job?
My local kindergarten also only has women. Guess why?
mjbeswick|2 years ago
mc32|2 years ago
If diversity would achieve it, then do that, if homogeneity would achieve that, then do that.
Personally, I think they need to figure out what their main goal is. Is it diversification in this one area, or is it parity/supremacy in this one area and then go from there. One cannot serve two masters.
jessekv|2 years ago
chabes|2 years ago
You are comparing two completely different things as if they are related.
Is there something about computers and AI that men have a knack for?
As usual, we have men outraged about a more even playing field.
snehk|2 years ago
joemazerino|2 years ago
anon291|2 years ago
1. There is a relatively stable job opening with diversity requirements. The 'diverse' hire is made.
2. The 'non-diverse' candidates for the position end up not getting the job. While seemingly inconsequential on its own, this has the effect of 'non-diverse' candidates being over-represented among those who are overqualified for their current position.
3. In order to get a more suitable position for their abilities, these 'non-diverse' candidates are forced to work on higher risk projects, maybe lacking the same prestige, as the position in (1).
4. Due to their ability, these riskier projects take off. Now the risk was higher, so the reward is commensurately higher.
5. As these projects mature and grow and attract more money, they start to have job openings similar to 1.
6. Charges of discrimination are made when only 'non-diverse' candidates seemed to have benefited from this novel technology. And likely those same candidates in 2 are now forced out as more jobs like 1 are opened up in the projects they grew in 4. Then the start at step 3 again.
Personally, I have absolutely seen this play out with AI. I was in the industry before all the LLM / NVDA buzz. Many people thought it was crazy, a pipe dream, etc. Now... everyone wants in and is retconning their stories to talk about how they always supported it. Give me a break.
rticesterp|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
BigParm|2 years ago
Maybe a weaker player with a different perspective makes the team stronger than would another homogenous superstar.
I just don’t know.
CWuestefeld|2 years ago
If we want different perspectives, then let's look for people that are urban vs suburban, religious vs atheist, short vs tall, active vs sedentary, sports fans vs those who would rather read a book, listeners of classical music vs country, those who served in the military vs pacifists, and so on. Why tell ourselves that the most important "diversity" we need is to be found in sex/gender and race?