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

New ethics courses in computer science

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 156 posts

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#31

Post by hueving »

dragonwriter wrote: post #20
rafiki6 wrote: post #13

Technologists aren't doctors. Doctors are a necessity because people have an incessant need to stay alive. Technologists aren't a fundamental necessity to society. We are business people. The only rules/ethics that govern us are business rules/ethics. Some might argue, "but technology is required for us to survive". It's not. We've survived plenty without it. Technology is required for us to thrive.

> Technologists aren't doctors. Doctors are a subset of technologists. > Doctors are a necessity because people have an incessant need to stay alive. Medical care is an application of technology people are particularly willing to sacrifice other things to pay for, but not without limit. That's not the only application of technology for which they is true. > Technologists aren't a fundamental necessity to society. Har…

Using technology != technologist in this context. Calling a doctor a technologist essentially makes everyone a technologist and the term becomes meaningless.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#32

Post by wu-ikkyu »

rafiki6 wrote: post #13

Technologists aren't doctors. Doctors are a necessity because people have an incessant need to stay alive. Technologists aren't a fundamental necessity to society. We are business people. The only rules/ethics that govern us are business rules/ethics. Some might argue, "but technology is required for us to survive". It's not. We've survived plenty without it. Technology is required for us to thrive.

Without technology doctors/medicine would not exist (apart from perhaps foraging for medicinal plants)

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#33

Post by dsr_ »

Alex3917 wrote: post #7
ProAm wrote: post #3

Such a good opening line, "The medical profession has an ethic: First, do no harm. Silicon Valley has an ethos: Build it first and ask for forgiveness later."

Yeah but both of those are just marketing postures that don’t really have anything to do with the underlying realities of their respective industries.

It's necessary to establish a policy before you can enforce it.

You can't argue about exceptions if you don't fundamentally support the legitimacy of the policy, either.

"First, do no harm" is a policy statement. Once you accept it, you can make arguments about tradeoffs (pain management, amputation, chemotherapy, abortion), but without having a policy statement, there's no argument being made, just a free-for-all mess.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#34

Post by giaour »

rafiki6 wrote: post #13

Technologists aren't doctors. Doctors are a necessity because people have an incessant need to stay alive. Technologists aren't a fundamental necessity to society. We are business people. The only rules/ethics that govern us are business rules/ethics. Some might argue, "but technology is required for us to survive". It's not. We've survived plenty without it. Technology is required for us to thrive.

This sentiment strikes me as naive. Doctors aren't the only people governed by a code of professional ethics: lawyers, civil engineers, and public school teachers can all have their licenses revoked for ethical violations.

Setting the bar at "a practitioner's malpractice could result in death or injury" ignores all other forms of harm

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#35

Post by lev99 »

Ethics is already required for ABET accreditation. Almost every good United States based university level Computer Science program is ABET accredited. I took an entire two credit long course on ethics to receive my degree, involving writing at least four essays. One of the essays discussed the ethical considerations for writing code utilized by the military. The idea that computer programmers can do evil is not new. While some universities are creating new computer ethics courses, creating new computer ethic courses is not new. How is this national news worthy? NYTimes has been increasingly disappointing.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#36

Post by peoplewindow »

taurath wrote: post #26
seabird wrote: post #23

All of these noble ideas of ethics and social responsibility are great for everyone that feels bound by them themselves. Many of the rest can't be bothered. People who have to be taught that the missile they're building is going to kill people and that they should feel bad about it probably already knows that the missile they're building is going to kill people and they don't feel bad about it. You see this issue com…

I think people come up with all sorts of justifications for why what they’re doing isn’t wrong. Concerted effort to knock down those justifications and socially shame those that cling to them does work - consider all the people who don’t want to go work for an ad company or a defense contractor, or those who leave with one of the reasons being to escape the industry that they know is wrong.

I think the opposite - people come up with all sorts of justifications for why what other people are doing is wrong. This lets them feel self satisfied, virtuous and perhaps a little smug effectively for free, and if their position is perhaps a little thinly thought out, well, no big deal, it's not like anyone is going to listen anyway.

I've watched many attempts to tar entire industries as evil over the years. Invariably the people doing the tarring look foolish or naive - like they can't think more than one step ahead, or like they live in a world where tradeoffs do not exist.

To pick just the two examples you chose: without defense industries countries would be ripe for being taken over by even a slightly aggressive invader who would immediately commit all sorts of horrible atrocities. That's why defense exists. Given that countries have been invading each other for thousands of years, it's a massive stretch to believe we are in a post-war society and people who attack defense workers invariably never try to argue that. They don't seem able or willing to think the next step ahead: "ok, everyone refuses to build weapons.... then what?"

And as for ads, if you remove all ads from the internet, TV, cinemas etc then all those things would suddenly become way more expensive. Good luck affording an internet connection if your daily browsing habit isn't being subsidised by advertisers anymore. That would be a fast way to ensure nobody poor could use the internet. Do you hate the poor? Probably not: more likely you never thought about the consequences of not having advertising.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#37

Post by dragonwriter »

hueving wrote: post #31
dragonwriter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technologists aren't doctors. Doctors are a subset of technologists. > Doctors are a necessity because people have an incessant need to stay alive. Medical care is an application of technology people are particularly willing to sacrifice other things to pay for, but not without limit. That's not the only application of technology for which they is true. > Technologists aren't a fundamental necessity to society. Har…

Using technology != technologist in this context. Calling a doctor a technologist essentially makes everyone a technologist and the term becomes meaningless.

You are welcome to pose a definition of technologist that included the people you mean to include and excluded the people you mean to exclude, but by any coherent definition doctors are as much technologists as IT workers in general, though I can see some reasonable definitions that would exclude most of both and only include a few of either.

But, in any case, the lack of formal ethical rules applicable to IT is not about how necessary technologists are or aren't compared to doctors.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#38

Post by IntronExon »

lev99 wrote: post #35

Ethics is already required for ABET accreditation. Almost every good United States based university level Computer Science program is ABET accredited. I took an entire two credit long course on ethics to receive my degree, involving writing at least four essays. One of the essays discussed the ethical considerations for writing code utilized by the military. The idea that computer programmers can do evil is not new.…

In the absence of regulatory bodies, professional sanction and the like, its worth even less than most accreditations in the tech world.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#39

Post by seabird »

taurath wrote: post #26
seabird wrote: post #23

All of these noble ideas of ethics and social responsibility are great for everyone that feels bound by them themselves. Many of the rest can't be bothered. People who have to be taught that the missile they're building is going to kill people and that they should feel bad about it probably already knows that the missile they're building is going to kill people and they don't feel bad about it. You see this issue com…

I think people come up with all sorts of justifications for why what they’re doing isn’t wrong. Concerted effort to knock down those justifications and socially shame those that cling to them does work - consider all the people who don’t want to go work for an ad company or a defense contractor, or those who leave with one of the reasons being to escape the industry that they know is wrong.

Consider all the people who do want to go work for an ad company or a defense contractor. Ethical outlooks are relative, but your outlook bother people who are "unbound," even if their outlook bothers you. Go ahead and knock down those justifications all you like, but some people can't be swayed. You could go ahead and jail them for their unsavory take and they would see themselves as a victim of a society that denies them their freedom.
Post reply on HN