Academic freedom with Goog

Just saw NPR news about Gebru being fired/resigning for reason related to publication dispute with Google the company. Some many number of people signed letter to ask for transparency and reconsideration.

Honestly, HR is not the most customer friendly or innovative department of silicone valley companies—on average. There are certainly awesome HR individuals and HR leaders that I’ve encountered, but there surely are some seriously uncaring individuals, senior leaders and policies that acted inhumanely and unreasonably. This quotation from Gebru, as published by a very sympathetic review in the Washington Post, is something that perhaps most minorities can write with significant degree of sincerity:

Gebru recounted her most recent experience in the email as an example of why she had given up on advocating for diversity inside Google. “[S]top writing your documents because it doesn’t make a difference,” she wrote. “[Y]our life gets worse when you start advocating for underrepresented people, you start making the other leaders upset when they don’t want to give you good ratings during calibration

This advocacy she speaks of represent a swath of disparate and dissenting opinions regarding various modes in which minorities are treated. When “reasoning” with the employee through normal management chain fails, the mighty HR steps in and uses company business related performance reviews (known as calibrations at Google) to enforce the company’s stance. The only exception here is that one of Gebru’s job is to improve minority inclusion at Google—by losing her own inclusion she has created a self-fulfilling failure to perform her duties to the company. Also, her declaration that writing documents is useless is self defeating as well. As a scientist, a big part of her work will be to document and publish her learnings and believes. Quit writing documents is quitting the job. Sigh… the troubles we have in the computer industry.

It is certainly not surprising that Gebru had to separate from Google. Recall recent episode of her very civilized and reasonable discussion with LeCunn on Twitter. Sadly, I empathize with both of them. Being a minority who likes to think about the reasonable, I definitely feel her frustration from lack of acknowledgement and consideration. But I also feel the scientific curiosity that I imagine LeCunn has for the science.

The problem here is what we do not know. 3 hours after the NPR articles published, I do not see the paper whose quality is in dispute on pre-publication sites. It is highly unlikely that Google will respond publicly to explain why it does not want Gebru at al. to talk about why Google’s core technology is inherently racist and environmentally damaging.

The next day, Jeff Dean published a google doc presenting his view of this incident. One obvious takeaway from Dean’s postmortem write up is that, somewhere in some of her communications, Gebru challenged the mystery, anonymity and opacity of “the official Google internal review process” that assesses scientific qualifications of prospective publications. Her challenge may have been that the review process has excessive and unaudited (white/discriminative and profit-only focused) power. Google apparently has kept that process a secret even to its subjects and in light of this very public revolt.

Interestingly, many academicians and institutions come out in support of Gebru. Some many dozens of hours later MIT tech review published writing based on draft of the paper. MIT seems to also take the position that there is unclear and inconsistent behavior on the part of Google.

The concerning problem is Google’s monopoly. If you look carefully, the organizers of the public challenge letter to Google uses a Gmail address. Google’s infrastructure powers so many silicone valley companies that if there were any unconscious systemic or cultural bias, they would be ingrained in the business infrastructure that every silicone valley company depends on. How do you learn about academic freedom or ethics or AI? Well, you will undoubtedly Google it. Leaders of startups are recruited from Google to bring their magic Google mojo to power new startups. Software is taken, for free, from Google because others do not have the tech… Lint from under the nails of the likes of Dean become treasures of the industry when they are unearthed from Google.

This is not a company. This is a center of a civilization. While it is very brave for a few researchers to stand up to it to demand something, the outcome and benefit of this divisive exercise is not clear at all. The signatories of the complaint letter certainly cannot all resign from their jobs under leads who wishes to uphold the values and methods that worked so great at Google.

My firm belief is that we need to build more common ground by working on creating the common ground. We need for people of all kinds to come closer and closer to discuss and improve shared core principles. And I definitely mean that the shared principles are truly shared: when presented with similar situation, different people owning the same principles react and decide essentially for the same reasons.

Despite our biological similarities, despite our common humanity, common ground does not come for free. Despite our shared computer protocols for global exchange of information. All that needs to be said must still be said to build understanding. Demands for apologies and submission to a point of view, while righteous to do for the righteous, doesn’t really build common ground, it doesn’t improve shared understandings.

But I will always end my commentary on this subject by saying that my people, my ancestors were not enslaved for centuries. My direct ancestors had not had the pleasure of being subjects or objects of European men. My parents were not firehosed or beaten to shot or burned or segregated for the color of their skin. I will humbly acknowledge that I have lesser cultural and genetic sensitivity and immunity to racism and imperialism. This leaves me with a gaping chasm of doubt about my views regarding the forgoing news. Maybe I really don’t know how bad things really are and what radical means of resistance or revolution are required for a true change for the better.

😬😱

A week later, some big wigs have weighed in. One unavoidable observation is that University of Washington prof is taking Jeff Dean’s side. Perhaps Dean’s matriculation there had this kind of politics. behind it as well?!

Here is one question is if you were behind the veil of ignorance, and you don’t know if you are minority or not, you don’t know if you’re rich or not and you don’t know if you have knowledge or not, would you:

  • Want to work with someone like Gebru or Dean.
  • Would you want to manage Gebru or Dean?
  • Would you want to be managed by Gebru or Dean?
  • Would you cite Gebru or Dean regarding the safety and ethics of Google inc taking on the same position as their paper?
  • Would you follow either one’s leadership in terms of ethics or social justice.

I cannot imagine myself wanting to be any where near either of these two characters. I would probably have to cite both opposing opinions since BOTH of them have knowledge about the matter far beyond my cognition and experience. But honestly, I do have to factor into consideration that Dean is really protecting a possibly very evil industry that he was instrumental in creating. I also must factor into the citation that Gebru is highly leveraged in the Identity Politics market. One cannot conscientiously discuss the very polarizing political topic without acknowledging these objectively existing aspects of these characters. In either case, although I fear for my own personal safety and sanity to come into proximity of these people, I do have to say that they are highly valuable assets of our society. Their existence enriches us all, and quite possibly quantified in similar orders of magnitude. IMMHO, this is great!

… some time later… 🎇 The formation of a minority union is a nice touch. Hope to see more…

Mini-batch size and pipeline effects

I have the joy of instructing a child in the techniques of eating recently. It occurs to me that I have not really ever described the chewing process. It took some years for me to finally point out the deficiencies of their eating technique.

First issue may have been caused by our own pedantic habits. We insist to the child that she swallow a bite fully before starting next bite. That’s how we were taught. But after years of struggling with slow eating, I finally decided that perhaps they should put more food into their mouth while the last bite is incomplete. Truth be told that is what I do. The food at the end of chewing is tasteless. Adding more unchewed food in the front helps supplant our taste sensations to stimulate saliva production which in turn helps the food go downs. Our teeth are arranged for staged chewing. Front teeth’s cuts and rear molars grind the food. So pipelining the chewing seems natural.

A second problem with chew-swallow-more procedure is that sometimes the mouth end up with insufficient amount food. The mouth operates inefficiently as the food decreases. This is both in terms of bandwidth (that it is chewing less for every tightening of muscles), and in terms of per-chew efficiency. At the limit where our teeth are close together, the jaw muscles are not terribly strong. At least not mine. The chewing is most forceful when there is at least a quarter inch to an inch of food mass in the mouth. The effect of small bite is that with each tightening of the jaw muscles, less food is being chewed and the food is being chewed less effectively than a fuller mouthful. A similar problem arise when you use batch normalization, the original batch normalization where the normalization stats are literally computed on the mini-batch, if mini-batch size is is too small, the variance will be too high to be very useful.

What a strange thing to have to think about. I have always remembered the opposite directions: small bites, swallow before eating more. But in reality and in reasoning, it seems my de facto strategy of medium amount of food and pipelined chewing is most effective.

I suppose many people figure that out through experimentation, some may even do research in this subject. I wonder what else I did or did not figure out about myself as I grew and grew and grew?

It is, however, pure joy and peace, to be part of childrens’ growing process. Even though often we are made to examine the nature of our realities…, and the letters of our spelling.

Does DS9 know about this?

Wait, what? The Dominion is involved in vote tempering in America ???? Quick, some body raise Sisko@DS9.starfleet.mil !

Actually, wait, what would the TLD be for Starfleet? It has that militaristic organization, but its driven by directives and principal that goes beyond serve and protect. Maybe they’ll have a TLD called .fed to service federation activities. Idk, there are paradigm shifts that maybe present say analogies just can’t describe.

It’s difficult to imagine a pursuit more noble than space exploration and exploitation as promoted by my most favorite TV show Star Trek. like would there need to be a TLD for FED? Are there any thing else I the future other than the Federation? Maybe the TLD will be .sf for Starfleet.

Thankfully, this is not yet a full blown problem yet today. The evil genius know as Elon Misk still does not have a definitive advent age on space exploration and occupation. But there are news appearing with titles like “Psyche, an asteroid believed to be worth more than $10,000 quadrillion is observed through the Hubble in new study.”

Don’t anybody tell The Chine$e, lest Trump tweeter storm America about its, what if they get a head start on these “rare” earth metals?

Also, did they consider inflation when they did that calculation? Were the metal really become available, their cost would drop so far that it wouldn’t be worth that much. This might be a thing that economist have a name for, but the intrinsic value of that asteroid seems vastly different from its market value due to plentiful ness.

The point being, what do we do when we find out our measly existence and value system is absurdly moronic when a technological shift suddenly changes everything…

Do we drop everything and go digging for precious metal? Do we give up monogamy because… we’ll just because it sucks. Do we fire the president and vote a Misklike person to be our eternal leader? That’s not completely absurd, for $10,000 quadrillion, nothing is absurd. We could reproduce profusely and prolifically until our bodies build a bridge to the stars and a wall against aliens. We could impeach the entire congress and only build rockets and fly, fly, fly!!!

Again, we’re obviously not there yet, but it feels tantalizingly close.

What shall we do then? Will our children live fruitful lives that we may comprehend? Where in the world is our world going ?

I have to get better 二锅头。Who knew these cheap Chinese products can all have same name and be so different in effects…

Ahhh, shoot, I just got it. “Black alert!”

I hope it doesn’t get misinterpreted as … in the context of BLM, … and worst if it is glorified for violence.

And I wonder why in those those thousands of years, now referring to Star Trek Discovery universe, why they haven’t figured out a stable way to make changes using time travel. It feels like there can be multiple equilibria that one can choose from and that achieving a different equilibrium can both be “good for everyone” and “immutable change” that cannot be changed by another time travel. I would be disappointed if that’s a physical impossibility.

Again, I need better …

I Voted in the 2020 Election

I just voted in the 2020 election. Now I have rushed to Starbucks for that ceremoniously celebratory coffee. Democratic capitalism is so great!

Hey, did anybody find the radio buttons on this years voting app non-intuitive? After making a selection, you must in select it (by tapping the already-selected box again) before you can select another one. If you want to update a write-in choice, you must unselect, re-select, and retype the choice. This is kind of counter-intuitive. Most people are used to radio button groups that can unselect.

A related issue is the non-standard keyboard that is arranged alphabetically onscreen. Why not at least let me choose the QWERTY keyboard? This abnormal element of tablet UI surely adds to tech anxiety everyone has developed circa 2020 about stepping up to a new tablet.

Another thing kind of bugging me is the enormous screens in use. I mean I sure feel like this is special, the voting screen is even larger than the screen inside Tesla cars. It seems so long. But for especially engineered screens, it has horrible glare due to the angle and ceiling lights at my voting location. My tax well spent, I think…

Volunteers seem to have underrepresented minorities. I don’t know if white people just have more enthusiasm for democracy or what. Sure there’re those Asian kids trying to get community service hours. And sure there is a Hispanic guard. But election officials in my town were white. This is something we minorities have to try harder at. Yes, work is long and hard, pay is lousy and mouths-to-feed are many, relatively speaking, but you have gotta make the time for election! Minorities, please volunteer !!

And those are my only gripes. Otherwise I am immensely grateful for my safe and uncoerced participation in this sacred event in persons. It was very exciting to see people of all kinds standing in line, six feet apart, in this brisk November morning, to vote. I have voted many times before, but voting in person is definitely very different.

42

Why is 42 the answer?

Maybe the question is from a maitre’d at a restaurant…

“It’ll just be for(4) two(2) tonight.”

“It’ll just be 42 of us tonight.”

Never doubted the ingenuity of British literature.

Discovery S3E3

Very cool. At most Famx.3

Well, they have done it. Even though it’s only E3, we can feel that the whole show is definitely a millennium ahead of S1. Everything I’ve complained about, from not having any useful Asian bridge crew, to horrific dialog, to lack of gravitas when controlling computers, to the lack of happiness… it is all gone! Asians did a lot to bring USS discovery so far into the future. Dialog sound like real people in real dialogue, and the writing is witty and delivered instead of barked. Tech has progressed, programmable matter! That is damned cool sci-fi. Their operating the programmable matter interface definitely looks like the new UI let them feel the commands they are issuing. Headstrong characters that work. Inexplicable geniuses are a must in a sci-fi show and now we have a spectrum of them. Then, there is the story, this show is what Trek feels like. Excitingly barraging into the unknown full smile ahead, always coming out on top of tech and evil.

Looking back to history known to us, we can find Petroleum as one of the most transformative power source human has discovered. According to wikipedia, there’s good record of human comprehending relevant chemical and engineering properties of petroleum for the last 2000-4000 years. Modern commercial drilling began in the mid 1800’s, developing technologies to separate crude into gasses and liquids for various uses. Around the same time as start of commercial oil drilling, the internal combustion engine (ICE) was also commercialized. Since then, the most consuming use of petroleum is for powering ICE’s. So we are approach two centuries of using Petroleum to power our engines.

Jump ahead into the Trek Universe. It is theorized that first contact was made after humans successfully achieved faster-than-light travel using warp engines (presumably using dilithium crystal, the new Petroleum) in 2063. The events of discovery season 2 ends in 2259, then discovery season 3 starts in the year 3188, with the Burn (destruction of all dilithium crystals and the ships around them) occurring a century before that late in the 31st century. So we’re as advanced into the age of petroleum as the Federation will have been into the age of dilithium when Discovery jumped ahead 900 years.

This story really tickles the imagination. It challenges us to think at a grander scale about the comings and going’s of technologies. The massive changes in our civilizations when technologies come and go. Every person is such a small speck, so inconsequential, so very powerless against the emptiness and chaos of space. until you realize you’re the emperors daughter… oh wait… until you realized that you’d been part of something great, then you realize that you have greatness in you, that you are great! And even when you have rekindled that new hope, the newborn spirit is curious, fearless and determined, but it is frail…

Another aspect of the story is the change in Burnham. she says it a few times that she has let go of some of Federation within her. It’s kind of dangerous to see a happy person when Federation (and the Vulcan) is removed. But that’s what’s happened.

Absolutely mesmerizing!

Fantastic in so many ways!

Ravishing! Wild! Beyond!

Bravo!

YACCT: Yet another Covid-19 conspiracy theory

In 2020, the world coped with a traumatic pandemic caused by COVID-19. The Chinese locked down for a few months, and then gradually opened their country. It is now mid Oct. same year and the US is still partially locked due to fluctuating new case counts.

One cannot help but wonder what the Chinese did during those two months that they were able to just open up their country. This is a country of 1.4 Billion people that sustained healthy economic growth to become a world power in just a few decades. Contrary to popular American characterization, the central government in Beijing probably do exercise quite a bit of care when determining these drastic policies about lockdown and unlockdown. A country full of dead people, after all, also kills the power that they have secured over them. They must have had a working vaccine or a portfolio of therapeutics to treat Covid-19 within people of a variety body conditions before they let their entire population out of lockout around the intersection of Q1 and Q2.

How they achieved these medical feats of wonder in such a short time is up to speculation. It seems relatively easy for them to take a city and artificially spread the disease using the food delivery system they installed to supply everyone with food. Then, they just monitored them through the course of the disease as the sick went to hospitals. It is neither unimaginable nor irresponsible if the Chinese did this. What’s a city of half a million compared to the livelihood of 1.4Billion people?

Now, I am all for informed consent. Recalling the birth of my child, in the first few hours of her birth, the nurse at this American teaching/research hospital left her unwrapped, heater lamp off and in front of a window open to October air outside. I mean, the heat lamp built into the cradle was on, the nearest window closed and my baby wrapped, and then some lady dressed up as a nurse came and reversed all of these, while I watched. My child shortly thereafter stopped breathing and developed a problem that kept her in NICU for the next 11 days, while I watched!

I mean, I understand that I may be either demented or deranged. For I’m writing about conspiracy on an interweblog I’m the middle of the night, for god’s sake. But I tell you what, around 40th hour that I was awake that day, I had a moment to wonder the halls of that children’s hospital, kind of feeling a little afloat like a ghost. And on one of those walls, I saw a prominent poster advertising for volunteers to participate in a “temperature study” to study effects of different temperatures on newly born babies. I mean I am definitely all for non-discriminating informed consent for all medical treatments and experiments. I would not, if asked, have consented to this study done on my baby who had experienced a difficult birth. But to me, it seems that we have all the appearances and effect having been unwilling participants. I’m glad science is advanced having one more datapoint showing baby will die if left out in the cold after birth. I just don’t think neither we the parents nor the baby knowingly consented to it. And I am still uninformed about the use of the data collected during that experimentation.

(for future historian and the child’s reference, this occurred in the early 2010’s. In case I do not make it through the dark days of antiquity, let this be a datapoint for future humans and intelligent beings. Perhaps you will enjoy seeing how far you have come since my time.)

That happened in a prestigious American Research and teaching hospital in America a better part of a decade before Covid-19 but. It seems entirely possible that the Chinese experimenting on their own to solve COVID-19. I can kind of imagine them being able to get 500k even under proper informed consent and free volunteering. This is, after all, a communist lead country. There is still a lot of indoctrination about the good of many irrationally outweighing the good of one.

So where is the YACCT? One wonders if China may have bribed some countries with the details of their treatment capabilities. The fake skirmish between China and India—that’s probably a cover for China actually supplying India with a real cure. Russia boarder skirmish with China? That’s probably when it got itt too. Probably the one country that may truly not be involved in this world-wide conspiracy against America, is Japan. China probably would not offer the cure to Japan, and Japan is probably too proud to accept it… all Japanese has to do is speak Japanese and naturally that decreases Covid-19 transmission rate, according to one scientific research. God forbid that they were caught having imported anything from China after Tang the Dynasty.

So, there we have it. YACCT, against America! We’re the only country who didn’t get the real treatment Portfolio from China. That medical Intellectual Property, having being used on 1.4 billion people for the last 6 months during which America was locked down, must be somewhat useful to us in America if transferred in full.

As a person of Chinese heritage, I am very proud that my people can pull themselves together and accomplish great things in a short stressful period of time.

As an American, I wonder where is this spirit in America today? Where is that zeal to be the most advanced nation? Why are we lagging so far behind China in reopening? Has American medicine really fallen so low and so slow compared to other countries?

But I am numbly hopeful. we will pull through this—the same way my American Child pulled through that inhumane and degrading experimentation. We will survive, we will persevere and we will come out stronger, smarter, and better.

Evil shall not prevail!

You Have No Rights and Deserve No Privacy!!

I had an interesting mind-belching last night. This morning, I found out that the Catholic Pope wants to legalize homosexual civil unions. I don’t know if this is like a real thing or if it’s a stimulus to Conservatives to work harder to support Trump. Recall that President Trump is in the final stretches of his run for reelection to the highest office of this land. Those that want to protect the sanctity of marriage will surely be firing on all barrels after this last blow. America! The last bastion for conservative valued people.

Supposing that we are reasonable people. Supposing further that we believe in evolution as a most supported and most likely theory about how and why we came to be in recent times. What does evolution theory say about Human rights?

I would argue that evolution theory dictates that there are no fundamental rights to the species Homo Sapiens. I mean the existence of a God is not even a sure thing for most evolution scientists. Why would we believe that Human rights, one of God’s supposed creation, exist definitely? Freedom is not guaranteed above all else. Human freedom, much like freedom in mechanic physics, just is. If we are aware of it as a named idea, it is because this idea to interpret the happenings in the physical (and the social world within that) world helps us to explain and predict what happens next physical world. Us knowing about freedom and rights is possibly an evolutionary outcome and not a precursor requisite for evolution and progress.

The conclusion then is that there are no God given human rights. If we are mostly not even sure that God exists, there is no reason to believe all these liberal and egalitarian ideals like liberty, equality, justice, fairness, freedoms and rights, etc., exist in an absolute and metaphysical way as mandated by God.

My realization wipes clean the slate in my mind. I believe I will start anew and rethink all these ideas.

What about privacy? I yearned for some foundation to support my unbearable and ceaseless wanting to be assured of privacy in many domains. But I have not discovered it. There is no reason that we should expect privacy.

This, matter, again, seem to be a matter of physical world. Our physical world has light, sound, EM waves, and many many other things flowing around that carry information about. That organisms have evolved means to detect and interpret these physical artifacts is self evident.

The fact that we have not evolved too much to hide ourselves maybe that we have overcome the need for secrecy and privacy. We do not have skin that look like plants and rocks. We do not change our color of skin or fur based on surroundings or seasons. We in fact do not become transparent like we imagine some adaptive aliens can. We do not have P2P telepathy for communicating very stealthily. Would it not be reasonable to conclude that secrecy and privacy is of no existential importance to human beings? We seem to have overcome the need for individual secrecy and privacy by other intelligent and versatile means: We can build buildings, boxes, locks, etc. to protect ourselves. We can set up defensive perimeters using advanced weapons so as to efficiently deter attackers. We have been able to use smaller and smaller amount of our society’s resources towards successfully preventing everyone from been eaten by wolves or cannibalistic commies. All without hiding our bodies, the sounds and lights coming from our bodies and our whereabouts. We have better ways to do it.

In all, it doesn’t seem like there should be a supernatural or a natural reason why we would expect to have privacy. The fact that the physical world is as if it was designed without privacy in mind would suggest that we might spend our time on other solutions that do not require privacy.

(Come to think of it, it’s kind of funny that westerners use “Chinese Wall” is used to describe an information barrier when the Chinese say 天下没有不透风的墙 And they’re not referring to thermodynamic or barometric properties. The wisdom is that no secrets can really be kept for ever.)

I will also mention again that from the Read-Write perspective our evolutionary security(EvSec) policy has always been access freely but never mutate. Recall our DNA is often read, copied, interpreted and reproduced by all kinds of mechanisms inside the cell. We can create new copies of it, but for the most part we need the creation to be as exact a copy as possible without mutations. So I do believe that write-protection and any kind of mutative change should be defended against. With highest urgency superseding secrecy and copy protection.

What is Good: Then and Now

There are a lot of ways to think about what is good and what is not good. This question has been of interest to humans for a long time. In an effort to simplify the considerations, we should at least perform a time based separation. We should consider the question of “What is good” at different times in the life of an autonomous agent.

In the picture we have illustrated the flow of time with three instants in time highlighted by round dots. T1 represents a time at which we have the leisure of analyzing what might happen, and correspondingly producing a good agent to make decisions. T3 is a time after decision was made by the agent. At this time more observation of our physical world has become available to us. The consequent benefits or injury caused by said decision. 

Let’s first look at time T2. At this moment, the subject of our discussion, an automated agent, enhanced by GCI and other tech, has to make a decision. It does not matter if the decision making is a discrete process that produces decisions at intervals or if it is a continuous process producing a decision at every instant in time. All that matters is that at this moment in time, there is some set of observations and some memories and states the agent retained from time that has past. The decision being made is entirely a function of these two inputs. (Lets model a true RNG as part of observation–we observe a bit from an external source of entropy). This type of abstraction is very useful for programming as well as simplify a vast universe of possibilities so that we may perform informative mathematical analysis.

At time T1, we may choose one of many approaches to implement the agent. The agent may consider a snapshot observation at T2 or some aggregated information in time between T1 and T2. We may, for example, simulate all possible outcomes, and try to device an agent that can make the decision that work the best on average. Other metrics and objectives such as minimax may be used.(In multiagent extension, one may also consider using the QIM) We may for another example consider the regrets we may feel at T3 and focus on minimizing that consequence while making the agent (This is to say that at T3 we consider, additionally, all that might be observed to happen after T1). The one stipulation here is that at T1 we have to firstly specify what the observations and memories and states are. Without confining ourselves to these boundaries we cannot make an agent and consider its goodness. In reality, the function computation is not instantaneous, and for practical implementation purposes, we also stipulate bounded time in addition to bounded power of observation and GCI-mental capacity.

By isolating these three instants in time, we can clearly see that there is no question of good or bad for the action of the agent as it has no autonomy. The agent does not bear the weight of responsibility for acting well. For even its programming is decided non-autonomously ahead of time at T1. At T1, the entity responsible for the agent’s goodness may be forced to place itself within the restrictions of the agent (observations and GCI-mind) In a supervised setting the responsible entity may provide supervision by answering the question “What is the good decision in this situation at T2,” or “How do I make a good decision known these things at T2.” Semi-supervised setting may ask “What other decision is this decision like?”. Ultimately the responsible entity, to be good themselves, must do his best to ensure the agent makes the best best possible decision at T2.

The impact of that decision will be felt at T3. At all T3’s, nothing can be done about what happened at T1 and T2. All that remains is to celebrate our gains and morn our losses.

The conclusion seems to be that GCI is not about bad machines. The analysis of algorithmic bias, the concerns for all kinds of bias in the training data, all of these efforts people are putting in to making GCI is not about GCI itself. It is really about the GCI scientists, engineers, users and policy makers. We’re really talking about how we can be ourselves better at T1. Every complaint that GCI will be so terrible, maybe even end the world, they are complaints about ourselves at T1, that we have not made sufficient efforts or progress for everyone to feel good about T2 and T3. For me, personally, I think we should continue to better ourselves. WDYT?

AAA

Affirmative Action, Again, is not fundamentally wrong. Every person is different, everyone benefit from different things. Even basic needs like medicine and education can be very different from one person to the next. As we advance our understanding of ourselves and advance our technologies, it seems the only path forward is towards more individualized care and individualized education. I mean, until we reach full comprehension of the/an omniscient and omnipotent God like some people believe they have, we can’t know everything and there is no way for a single human engineered system to work for everyone. Everyone is special, and every live matter.

However, in our present American Democracy have established that race based preference is wrong. Doing something WRONG in the name of racial equality is dangerous for future endeavors for racial equality. There exist great disparity in quality of life for different races of people in America. There is a lot of work to do to get where we want to go. If we destroy our faith for this righteous dream of equality by engineering artificial inequalities based on race, there will be true inequality among us for ever thereafter.

We should commit ourselves to work to make everyone’s live better and matter more. But we should not do so based on race.