@mysecretalt
What I would like to know is how she got there, since Google has a history of making extremely biased decisions.(2/2)

@matrix Yes, I agree with most of your points. The fact that there are others who may not share her opinion is a good balancing factor, and LGBTQ+ and race issues aren't the biggest concern when it comes to AI.

I do think they are important, though. It would be terrible if AI discriminated against blacks or trans people. It would also be terrible if they discriminated against white heterosexual cis men. On one hand, I am opposed to her being there because she is against my interests, plain and simple. But, from an objective point of view, there should be someone just as "intense" as her, but in the opposite corner. Some may say that the nature of Google or the nature of the academics on the board will be enough to counter, which while I disagree lightly, may end up being true.

Side tangent: Another issue which is not a direct concern of this article or raised by someone else is just an "anti-establishment" person. Someone who isn't anarchist per se, but has serious, well thought out grievances with both silicon valley and large government. What some don't know is that Google, Uber, and many large startups in California basically bully local law enforcement and law makers into letting them do whatever they want. It has gotten to the point where people take the infamous Google bikes and throw them into the river, not out of fun, but out of disdain. CEOs are writing city laws. This is not good for the sovereignty of these city governments, and I can only see the problem growing if AI accelerates the rate at which these institutions grow. Though, I'm sure the ancaps will enjoy this to some extent, despite them being more left leaning.

I do find it curious that she got in there, as well. Perhaps it was an attempt at grabbing right leaning individuals, a favor owed, or for diversity due to her being female and successful conservative, a very small group.