New ethics courses in computer science • Hacker News Board

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#91

Post by thomastjeffery » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:40 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #85

artificial wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if we forced some liability on companies for what the software they sell does, that would change a lot of things fairly quickly. Absolutely that would change things, especially the cost of software.

I'm so tired of people saying stuff like this as if I should care. Go ahead, raise prices. If your product is solving a real problem, people will pay for it. If not, well, we didn't need you anyway. This is, incidentally, how capitalism is supposed to work. If your business model doesn't work without you doing bad things, then it shouldn't work. You don't have a god-given right to make money and if you can't make mon…

Usually the unethical things are designed to corner customers into spending more: DRM, proprietary game server hosting, etc.

The problem we have with capitalism now is that it is abused by large corporations who fight for their right to monopolize and abuse customers. What everyone else has lost is the right to compete without abusing customers.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#92

Post by thomastjeffery » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:43 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #90

artificial wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if we forced some liability on companies for what the software they sell does, that would change a lot of things fairly quickly. Absolutely that would change things, especially the cost of software.

> Absolutely that would change things, especially the cost of software. In other words: the current cost of software is artificially low because companies treat users unethically.

It's also artificially high for the same reasons.

I would posit that prices are artificially high in more cases.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#93

Post by matt4077 » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:43 PM UTC

zombieprocesses wrote: post #86

We already have ethics in the philosophy department. I'm was CS major and I took ethics and liked it so much I double majored in CS and philosophy. Ethics has no place in CS, nor more than ethics is required in biology or physics or algebra. If universities want students to learn about ethics, then make ethics 101 a "required elective".

Many natural science programs actually have classes in ethics, sometimes mandatory, sometimes as an elective.

The Technical University here in Berlin, Germany, has one of the most respected departments of philosophy in the country. The reason: After WW2, the British mandated that "hard" sciences should never again be taught without ethics.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#94

Post by pascalxus » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

I've been a software engineer for over 12 years and have never had to make a single ethical decision. It's always, here's the spec: build it.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#95

Post by skybrian » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #49

I grew tired of arguments supporting fleecing the users that were basically "We aren't making them do this, they choose to do it." I have heard them put forward at nearly every company I've worked at, at various levels and through various departments. At Google it was always "We don't take an editorial stand, this might be just what some of our customers want." That has been the most interesting aspect of their recen…

For ads I thought Google's usual justification was "some ads are useful."

It will be interesting to see what happens in response to Chrome's new ad blocker. I'm not sure there's that much difference ethically between opt-in and opt-out, but certainly a big practical difference, and it will change the ecosystem.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#96

Post by platz » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #49

I grew tired of arguments supporting fleecing the users that were basically "We aren't making them do this, they choose to do it." I have heard them put forward at nearly every company I've worked at, at various levels and through various departments. At Google it was always "We don't take an editorial stand, this might be just what some of our customers want." That has been the most interesting aspect of their recen…

Imagine the form of this logic applied to politics.

'We don't have any policy positions or visionary goals. Those come from what our voters want'.

Ostensibly, this is what the system is designed to do. But of one believes elected officials have no agency or accountability, they are fools.

Now politics is different from media, though. Maybe one way is that a media platform is remaining impartial which a politician cannot do. So maybe the OP quote is better targeted at non-social network companies re ads @ google

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#97

Post by lovich » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:45 PM UTC

pascalxus wrote: post #94

I've been a software engineer for over 12 years and have never had to make a single ethical decision. It's always, here's the spec: build it.

Whether or not you choose to follow orders _is_ an ethical decision.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#98

Post by matt4077 » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

subroutine wrote: post #12

Whenever I hear about these ethics courses I'm mainly curios about what non-obvious substantive content being taught (because there is apparently enough to fill a semester-long course). Anyone who has taken one of these courses care to share something they learned that, before the course, had never considered?

You can easily fill a semester just discussing the trolley problem.

The most important aspect of such classes is invariably to teach that technical decisions have ethical consequences. Just getting people to think about those would be a big win. Too many people still take a "it's the person that kills, not the gun" to their task of building a better gun.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#99

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #88

kbenson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At Google it was always "We don't take an editorial stand, this might be just what some of our customers want." It's an interesting choice for companies, and Google in particular. Either be proactive and get accused of forcing your customers behavior or having ulterior motives based on money (e.g. Google's ad blocking program), or let them do what they want and get accused of turning a blind eye because it makes mo…

I'm curious, what value does your ticket brokerage create?

[deleted]

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#100

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

moomin wrote: post #14

purple-again wrote: post #4

Always a losers game. You implement it with ethics in mind, I do not. I win and you fall into obscurity. The law is all that matters. If I can not lose what I take, there is no reason for me not to take it (so long as I'm still chasing the 'fuck you money', morals are great after you have it). I understand it, lots of people have dreamed big dreams of how great the world would be if everyone else was just like them t…

If the law is the only thing that matters, then it follows that more regulation will come. Maybe try self-regulating before putting more power in the hands of the government?

One would wish.

The fact is, self-regulating against market pressures pretty much never happens - coordinating people against their perceived, short-term self-interest is hard. That's the very reason governments exist.