New ethics courses in computer science • Hacker News Board

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#131

Post by aoki » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 11:40 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #124

I'm teaching a 1-credit class on ethical hacking[1] this semester at my university, and I'm really glad to see this issue gain serious traction in major CS departments. I only wish it happened earlier -- I wanted to help develop a (more general) CS ethics class around a year ago[2][3], but encountered resistance from instructors and professors over perceived impracticality and adding non-technical "burden" to the maj…

kudos.

ABET-accredited engineering programs have had to document instruction in design ethics for a long time. anybody designing a good CS curriculum should know that and be thinking about whether CS really ought to be different in that regard.

berkeley has offered CS 195 [0] for more than three decades.

[0] http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs195/

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#132

Post by aoki » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 11:55 PM UTC

IntronExon wrote: post #38

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.

ABET accreditation is for degree programs, not individuals. it sets curricular standards.

most credible engineering programs maintain ABET accreditation, as it has been required for graduates to become PEs [0].

[0] i recently heard that berkeley EECS is dropping its ABET accreditation, as this is no longer true: https://eecs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/abet_letter_to...

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#133

Post by wanderer2323 » Wed, Feb 14, 2018, 12:28 AM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #123

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…

Google can't take an editorial position, they are forbidden (sort-of) from doing so by law: 47 U.S.C. § 230, Communication Decency Act (1996). Per the recent Wired article on FB: "This is the section of US law that shelters internet intermediaries from liability for the content their users post. If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity"[0] The EFF has a…

When you are training your search models you take editorial position all the time. There is no 'one single truth' of what the search results should be, let alone what the search-related artifacts (query suggestions, drill-downs, answers, etc) should be.

Real people go to work every day to label images as 'corresponding' or 'not corresponding' to a query, different people write guidelines for these labeling, other people curate which queries to label and which labeled results to train, etc etc.

In theory, all these people or at least their accumulated work produce some kind of 'neutral' result; in reality, a systemic bias on some of these levels can easily have an editorial effect that is impossible to prove.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#134

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 14, 2018, 12:31 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #120

dragonwriter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just Google it, I don't need to propose anything. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/technologist

Neither of the two definitions at your link seems to serve your "include IT, exclude medical doctors" purpose.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#135

Post by Balgair » Wed, Feb 14, 2018, 12:40 AM UTC

wanderer2323 wrote: post #133

Balgair wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google can't take an editorial position, they are forbidden (sort-of) from doing so by law: 47 U.S.C. § 230, Communication Decency Act (1996). Per the recent Wired article on FB: "This is the section of US law that shelters internet intermediaries from liability for the content their users post. If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity"[0] The EFF has a…

When you are training your search models you take editorial position all the time. There is no 'one single truth' of what the search results should be, let alone what the search-related artifacts (query suggestions, drill-downs, answers, etc) should be. Real people go to work every day to label images as 'corresponding' or 'not corresponding' to a query, different people write guidelines for these labeling, other peo…

I'm certain that this is going to come up in anti-trust suits as a violation of Section 230. I can't see how it isn't editing the content that folk's see, despite the complexity of the ML. Judges don't like being told 'oh, it's too complex to understand, gee-shucks!' let us get away with it.

Surprisingly, such a ruling will have some philosophic ramifications about the ability for a computer to think and then edit. Though the case is unlikely to hinge on that semantic point, it will be talked about in lawyer bars.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#136

Post by justin66 » Wed, Feb 14, 2018, 3:31 AM UTC

nemild wrote: post #80

nostrademons wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, many microfinance programs that are widely heralded as having lifted many people out of poverty (eg. Grameen Bank, CARE) rely heavily on peer pressure to boost their repayment rates. They lend out to groups within a village, and then if any one member of the group fails to repay the loan, the group can't access more capital. This creates a strong incentive for other members of the group to exert social…

Absolutely, and I say that having worked in microfinance before receiving this request. But to me, that doesn't mean we engineers can't still draw a line somewhere, especially if we are called on to participate. Just because peer pressure works in some context, it doesn't mean that it is always the right choice, and we need to debate the tradeoffs in different contexts (much like engineers debate tradeoffs in any tec…

> For example, the easiest way to cut the price of loans down would be to kill anyone if they didn't pay; defaults — and loan costs — would fall dramatically.

You state that as a hypothetical, but it's not like this has never been tried. The loans handled by lenders who include the threat of violence in the repayment plan are absolutely not characterized by low costs.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#137

Post by nemild » Wed, Feb 14, 2018, 3:42 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #136

nemild wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, and I say that having worked in microfinance before receiving this request. But to me, that doesn't mean we engineers can't still draw a line somewhere, especially if we are called on to participate. Just because peer pressure works in some context, it doesn't mean that it is always the right choice, and we need to debate the tradeoffs in different contexts (much like engineers debate tradeoffs in any tec…

> For example, the easiest way to cut the price of loans down would be to kill anyone if they didn't pay; defaults — and loan costs — would fall dramatically. You state that as a hypothetical, but it's not like this has never been tried. The loans handled by lenders who include the threat of violence in the repayment plan are absolutely not characterized by low costs.

But loans for these activities (such as a loanshark) have their own set of risks that have to be factored in and affect the interest rate:

- You may have no legal recourse and no collateral to seize

- The loan may be funding risky or illegal activity with a high likelihood of failure, which demands a higher interest rate

- There may be no competition that drives the price down

Ceteris paribus, increasing the cost of non-payment should reduce interest rates. If you relax the "ceteris paribus", then all bets are off.

Another way to see this is this question: if the lender had to forsake the threat of violence, would the loan price go up or down?

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#138

Post by Caveman_Coder » Wed, Feb 14, 2018, 4:04 AM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #106

platz wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 can…

If "the system" you're referring to is the USA, then no, it's not designed for that. We elect people based on ideology and character. They may have a few central policy platforms, but there are so many laws and resolutions passed that they cannot pre-advertise their positions or poll their constituents for every one. Hence, why we are a republic (or representative democracy, if you will). We elect people on the basis…

> "We elect people on the basis of trusting they will do the right thing"

That's not currently working too well for us...

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#139

Post by logicallee » Wed, Feb 14, 2018, 5:20 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #71

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…

> 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 work in the event ticketing secondary markets. That is, I work for a brokerage and buys and sells event tickets for a profit.

FYI you work for a ticket scalping shop, which is why you put so much verbiage there rather than saying so.

Based on what you've written, it's not clear what your firm adds to the world through its analytics and "investment". Which is why people don't like scalpers. Other than the scalpers, who else is better off if audience members pay a surplus over list price? (Or end up not going, as you've bought the last seats and priced them out.)

This is why "scalper" has worse connotation than "advertiser." (I don't work in advertising.)

By all means please let me know if you generate some value I am ignorant about, as you explicitly state is often the case ("misinformed").

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#140

Post by kbenson » Wed, Feb 14, 2018, 6:23 AM UTC

logicallee wrote: post #139

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 work in the event ticketing secondary markets. That is, I work for a brokerage and buys and sells event tickets for a profit. FYI you work for a ticket scalping shop, which is why you put so much verbiage there rather than saying so. Based on what you've written, it's not clear what your firm adds to the world through its analytics and "investment". Which is why people don't like scalpers. Other than the scalpers,…

> Based on what you've written, it's not clear what your firm adds to the world through its analytics and "investment".

Perhaps if you read the thread a bit more, you would have found my answers to these questions, and you could formulate useful questions that didn't ask for things that have already been provided.

If you would like to follow up to that comment with questions or complaints about how I've presented myself or the industry I work in, feel free to do so. I would be happy to engage with you on any criticisms you have on the points I've presented, I only hope you approach it in a less hostile manner than you have here.