> Today @heritage will critique gender identity @UN_CSW because powerful nations are pressing for the radical redefining of sex. If they can change the definition of women to include men, they can erase efforts to empower women economically, socially, and politically. #CSW63

That tweet does not say anything like "trans people don't exist", or that they should be harmed in any way, or that they aren't human. That tweet expresses a perfectly reasonable sentiment that many others share: that human beings are sexually dimorphic and cannot change sex. This sort of hyperbole on the part of transactivists is very frustrating: anyone who doesn't agree with extremist gender ideology is painted as a "bigot".

This is more important than one AI ethics panel with questionable authority. Google is in a position to censor and influence a huge amount of speech on the internet, and the fact that they were targeted by and arguably caved to a small extremist group is very troubling.

They may not view their own activity as "pretending" to be women, but the position of people like Kay Cole James (and many others, on both the left and right) is that they are simply not women. Whether or not they believe it about themselves is irrelevant.

The same reasoning is going to apply to e.g. restroom usage as well.

There are many other people who are saying the same thing about gender identity. It's strange that Vox describes this as "a particular cause for concern". It's not about "dehumanizing" trans people, it's about self-identification not being a valid basis for a law. If the Equality Act passes as written then the addition of gender identity would effectively remove sex as a protected characteristic.

It doesn't look like this board was a very good idea if the members were not okay with the first sign of disagreement. Will Google's actual AI projects even listen to this group at this point? It reminds me of AMP claiming to have a community driving the specification when in reality Google is just going to do whatever they want.

https://twitter.com/Smerity/status/1096189352743301120

> Thanks. So then it was 32 TPUv3s, to be more precise, and sticker-price training costs would then be per Smerity 32 * 24 * 7 * 8 = $43k?

https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/aqlzde/r_o...

What am I being naive about? Do all of the wildly successful Google products not count here?

It's in the paper. You don't have to read the whole thing, it's pretty early on.

You also put up a really simple strawman with "homeless person dying on the street". That's a really contrived scenario and not what actually happens, as the person you're replying to has already explained.