jonstokes.(com|eth)

Rather, they want Black people, women, womxn, latinx, & enby, & whole rainbow of folx to be designing the algos that decide if a black family can get a loan. In other words, the point is not the loan -- because that's a pretty simple patch via the dataset. No...

...the point is to eliminate the entire field as it's presently constructed, & to reconstitute it as something else -- not nerdy white dudes doing nerdy white dude things, but folx doing folx things where also some algos pop out who knows what else but it'll be inclusive!

You might call Gebru's product: Abolish AI. Or maybe Defund AI. It resonates with the police stuff, in that the point is not to patch a system via process or protocol. It's to have a /totally different group of ppl/ doing whatever things this group of oppressors was doing...

...under the expectation that the outcome would be better because different people with different interests & backgrounds & hereditary characteristics etc. would produce outcomes that are less white-dude-centric.

There is a direct analog between the "Black in AI" work and the police abolition work, then. The complaint from both groups is that patching/fixing the existing guild or profession (cops, AI) to produce better outcomes, while leaving it looking the same, is a non-starter.

What they want is for people who look & think & speak like LeCun -- insists on presumption of good faith, norms of civility, evidence, process, protocol -- to be pushed out, & for folks who look/think/speak like Gebru (i.e. successor ideology discourse norms) to dominate.

Gebru & co. also want veto power over the kinds of uses to which AI is put. For instance, the gender recognition stuff -- they'd like to able to say "no, don't use AI to divide people into male/female because that's violence. Any task or app that would do that is problematic."