Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't Be Evil: Utopias, Frontiers, and Brogrammers

logicmag.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Don't Be Evil: Utopias, Frontiers, and Brogrammers

#11

Post by matt4077 »

ivanbakel wrote: post #2

The "anti-political" part is probably the most pertinent to modern tech thought. People repeat it here as well - the idea that any kind of specification or statistic is just cold and hard, and there are no lenses. What I wonder more is: is it a product of the "build it" mentality like Turner says, or is it manipulated by money men with an interest is maintaining the status quo by silencing dissent as non-scientific?

In my experience, engineers tend to fetishise the sciences to a degree even scientists don't. Physics and math are among the most influential, and their biggest successes were build on reductionism, or the ability to split large problems into smaller, manageable units. The first instinct is not to immediately solve a problem, but to reduce its size. They also seek axioms, i.e. simple, universal truths from which to build larger solutions.

This approach quickly turns into frustration: people behave irrationally, for example, which turns economics from an offspring of mathematics into something more akin to applied psychology. Laws fail to live up to a standard of "plain meaning", because the myriad conflicts of life are to nuanced to be exhaustively captured in simple language. That's where the distrust of the legal system, as well as "smart contracts" come from.

It's interesting to compare engineers and scientists in this regard: the most successful scientists tend to have a vast appreciation of culture beyond their field of study. Richard Feynman, for example, excelled in music and painting, and became a bestselling author.

Re: Don't Be Evil: Utopias, Frontiers, and Brogrammers

#13

Post by yorwba »

matt4077 wrote: post #9

"Infrastructure is not political" is part of the canon here on HN as well. Bitcoin, as one of many examples, is often touted as being "neutral", or "unbiased" (in comparison to the Federal Reserve's monetary policy). The same sort of argument is gaining steam around discriminatory decisions by AI or "Big Data" systems: "It's an algorithm! It cannot be biased. Technology is neutral!"

It's never the infrastructure or the algorithm or the data that is political. It's the people using that infrastructure, algorithm or data in their decision-making who are responsible.

When a machine learning model determines that according to the available data, blacks are more likely to default on loans, it's not unfairly biased against blacks. It is merely reflecting that the world is unfairly biased against blacks.

The fault inevitably lies with the decision-makers who look at an algorithmic prediction and decide to maximize their profit. Because they confuse what is with what ought to be.

Re: Don't Be Evil: Utopias, Frontiers, and Brogrammers

#14

Post by engnr567 »

MrL567 wrote: post #5

The lines about engineers I find to be odd. I don't believe that an entire culture could think that way, yet the author states that the news is a out of context problem for these firms. Engineers don't actually think like that as this article claims it to be, right?

Based on my limited experience, most of the good engineers I know measure and care about quantifiable things like latency, throughput etc. They generally tend to get frustrated with fuzzy things like accuracy. (Data) Scientists, on the other hand, seem to be much more happier dealing with things like accuracy. "Ethicalness", however, nobody seems to care about measuring.

Re: Don't Be Evil: Utopias, Frontiers, and Brogrammers

#15

Post by emacsgifs »

matt4077 wrote: post #10
emacsgifs wrote: post #6

This is one of the more insightful and interesting reads posted on HN. I took issue with the statement that Apple have always cynically coopted counterculture and utopian motifs. Then I thought about it for a second. Getting people pumped up about Apple using utopian imagery and counterculture suggestions was always cynical. It just happened to work very effectively on me in the 80s, and may very well have fuelled a…

I think a discussion on Steve Jobs' morality is among the least productive uses of this excellent essay. Yet I'll add that people are complicated. In terms of his accomplishments, it is undeniable that Jobs was a force for good. As for his motives and methods, I have no trouble believing that Jobs (and the vast majority at Apple) used the image of counterculture in good faith, even while they changed it into a sort o…

> I have no trouble believing that Jobs (and the vast majority at Apple) used the image of counterculture in good faith, even while they changed it into a sort of hollowed-out version streamlined for capitalism.

This is exactly as I understand it too... Except this being a fairly good example of what counterculture circles generally call, a complete sell out.

It's complicated of course, how else does one stay relevant long term without also being extremely wealthy / i.e. the ability to broadcast a message to many many nodes? Put another way. Money talks.

Re: Don't Be Evil: Utopias, Frontiers, and Brogrammers

#17

Post by Animats »

He's completely missed what changed everything - advertising-supported services.

Before Google/Doubleclick, computing was about selling hardware, software, and service to people who used them. After Google bought Doubleclick, computing became about selling users to advertisers. The user is the product, not the customer. This totally changed the balance of power.

It's really a bit late to be worried about 1960s counterculture. That was half a century ago. Think of Silicon Valley culture as Mad Men 2.0, instead.

Re: Don't Be Evil: Utopias, Frontiers, and Brogrammers

#18

Post by coldtea »

emacsgifs wrote: post #6

This is one of the more insightful and interesting reads posted on HN. I took issue with the statement that Apple have always cynically coopted counterculture and utopian motifs. Then I thought about it for a second. Getting people pumped up about Apple using utopian imagery and counterculture suggestions was always cynical. It just happened to work very effectively on me in the 80s, and may very well have fuelled a…

>Obviously Steve had already exploited and cheated Woz on a number of occasions before the formative Mac 1984 Ads (which made a deep impression on me at the time.) So it's not that much of a reach to say they are somewhat cynical.

Sure, but do you know how many bona fide members of the counterculture themselves exploited and back-stabbed others, especially for petty power politics and fame/recognition? It's not like the counterculture didn't have a fair share of BS itself, or cynical people (Leary comes to mind, or take Jerry Rubin).

A large for-profit non-private company (as opposed to some small co-op or something) with revolutionary/hippie/counter-culture mottos that otherwise operates fine within capitalism was always gonna be BS in that aspect.

>Millions who believe he was an agent of change and a tech god. While many many, who look deeper at the man think he's quite the piece of (edit for politeness) work.

Those two things are not necessarily at odds. It's some particular Americanism (or protestantism relic?) to believe agents of change, national heroes, great historic figures etc, must also be good, altruistic and warm people.

Re: Don't Be Evil: Utopias, Frontiers, and Brogrammers

#20

Post by coldtea »

yorwba wrote: post #13
matt4077 wrote: post #9

"Infrastructure is not political" is part of the canon here on HN as well. Bitcoin, as one of many examples, is often touted as being "neutral", or "unbiased" (in comparison to the Federal Reserve's monetary policy). The same sort of argument is gaining steam around discriminatory decisions by AI or "Big Data" systems: "It's an algorithm! It cannot be biased. Technology is neutral!"

It's never the infrastructure or the algorithm or the data that is political. It's the people using that infrastructure, algorithm or data in their decision-making who are responsible. When a machine learning model determines that according to the available data, blacks are more likely to default on loans, it's not unfairly biased against blacks. It is merely reflecting that the world is unfairly biased against black…

>It's never the infrastructure or the algorithm or the data that is political. It's the people using that infrastructure, algorithm or data in their decision-making who are responsible.

I don't believe that. In a sense, it's like the classic NRA defense, that guns don't kill people, etc.

In reality, certain technologies also come with specific tendencies -- ascribed in their very design and formulation.

In the very least, certain technologies within specific societal contexts tend to have specific outcomes. Which makes placing the blame to "people using that infrastructure" problematic, because those people also operate within that societal context, and are influenced by it, they are not totally free agents.

Post reply on HN