I love meritocracy, but all the recent anti-DEI rhetoric is bad
4 points by leeny 7 months ago | 5 comments- bbor 7 months ago
I was going to criticize the lack of non-SV political context (e.g. thinking that bringing this up a decade ago means they were discussing affirmative action “before it was cool”), but the whole thing is just completely off kilter. DEI is as related to “Marxism” as it’s related to the secret ((plot)) to convince people the world is round. Baseless conspiracies don’t make good bases for technical decisions, IMHO.That is not the intent here. When I talk about DEI, I’m not talking about the political side of it or how it’s often co-opted by the left as a gateway to Marxism.
- felixtany 7 months agoI read through the whole article and forgot about that sentence, which did come off as pretty off field. Not sure where Marxism came from.
But idk, I thought the article was reasonable enough in calling for prestige-agnostic measures. Not like the measures in the article will guarantee the flawless hiring loop, but what was off kilter about the rest?
- bbor 7 months agoGood question! Basically, there are two theses here:
1. Systematic oppression exists but it's not your problem, don't worry about it, colleges should fix it.
2. You shouldn't put much stock in undergrad university ranking when choosing early career candidates.
In my opinion, the former is immoral cowardice and the latter is perfectly true, just trite. God knows why the big companies still work off of school filters, but I think a big part of it is that it's "common knowledge". I guess every argument we add on the pile against that is good, but not when it's based in a fundamentally out-of-whack worldview that sees 2024 as defined by terrible discrimination against the rich and powerful. Broken clocks and all that :)
It also doesn't help that it's all, ultimately, an ad for their services. Their big plan for solving systematic oppression is... to hire them. Which is pretty funny!
- bongoman42 7 months agoThe E part of DEI is pretty explicitly Marxist.
- bbor 7 months ago
- felixtany 7 months ago
- felixtany 7 months agoFor those who couldn't read the original tweet mentioned in the article:
``` Today we’ve formalized an important hiring policy at Scale. We hire for MEI: merit, excellence, and intelligence.
This is the email I’ve shared with our @scale_AI team.
———————————————————
MERITOCRACY AT SCALE
In the wake of our fundraise, I’ve been getting a lot of questions about talent. All of our external success—powering breakthroughs in L4 autonomy, partnering with OpenAI on RLHF going back to GPT-2, supporting the DoD and every major AI lab, and the recent $1bn financing transaction—all of it is downstream from us hiring the best people for the job. Talent is our #1 input metric.
Because of this, I spend a lot of my time on recruiting. I either personally interview every hire or sign off on every candidate packet. It’s the thing I spend the plurality of my time on, easily. But everyone can and should contribute to this effort. There are almost a thousand of us now, and it takes a lot to hire quickly while maintaining, and continuing to raise, our bar for quality.
That’s why this is the time to codify a hiring principle that I consider crucial to our success: Scale is a meritocracy, and we must always remain one.
Hiring on merit will be a permanent policy at Scale.
It’s a big deal whenever we invite someone to join our mission, and those decisions have never been swayed by orthodoxy or virtue signaling or whatever the current thing is. I think of our guiding principle as MEI: merit, excellence, and intelligence.
That means we hire only the best person for the job, we seek out and demand excellence, and we unapologetically prefer people who are very smart.
We treat everyone as an individual. We do not unfairly stereotype, tokenize, or otherwise treat anyone as a member of a demographic group rather than as an individual.
We believe that people should be judged by the content of their character — and, as colleagues, be additionally judged by their talent, skills, and work ethic.
There is a mistaken belief that meritocracy somehow conflicts with diversity. I strongly disagree. No group has a monopoly on excellence. A hiring process based on merit will naturally yield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas. Achieving this requires casting a wide net for talent and then objectively selecting the best, without bias in any direction. We will not pick winners and losers based on someone being the “right” or “wrong” race, gender, and so on. It should be needless to say, and yet it needs saying: doing so would be racist and sexist, not to mention illegal.
Upholding meritocracy is good for business and is the right thing to do. This approach not only results in the strongest possible team, but also ensures we’re treating our colleagues with fairness and respect.
As a result, everyone who joins Scale can be confident that they were chosen for their outstanding talent, not any other reasons.
MEI has gotten us to where we are today. And it’s the same thing that’ll get us where we’re going, as we embark on our next chapter focusing on data abundance, frontier data, and reliable measurement to accelerate the development and adoption of AI models.
Alex ```