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

Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

capitalandgrowth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 544 posts

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#111

Post by tfehring »

wolco wrote: post #85
tfehring wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In sufficiently complex systems, you can always blame someone else if you're motivated to do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IssR_J0QWr4 But ultimately there's always a software engineer involved in the creation of software - and that's not true of any of the other roles you mentioned. Since software engineers are necessary and sufficient to produce software, they should always be held responsible, and any oath s…

Not sure hou understand how software is made. A programmer doesn't decide what to write, when to write it and they are lucky to be included in how it's made. Programmers get specs and write programs to match those. At no point is it the programmers responsibility to talk about the moral compass of the project and where it fits into society. An oath to do no harm? You first need to give programmers the power to decide…

The programmer still decides whether that code gets written, since they’re the one writing it! If you write or review a piece of software, even if the spec was written by the PM/business, you’re endorsing whatever that spec says and all of its ethical implications. “Just following orders” is a famously poor defense at this point.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#112

Post by scarmig »

It just seems pointless to me. Microsoft collaborates with the PRC, including governmental projects that go well into deeply questionable territory. Presumably Brad Smith would stop those if he could, since he's selling himself as an ethics guru. But if the President of Microsoft himself is unable to scrub out these ethical blackspots, what would software engineers taking an ill-defined oath do?

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#113

Post by ezoe »

tfehring wrote: post #41
madrox wrote: post #8

I’m not a fan of comparisons to the Hippocratic oath. The greatest risk to AI ethics is not the ethics of software engineers but the ethics of the software engineering process. By the time tasks are handed to engineers, most of the ethical decisions have been made by product managers, designers, and business stakeholders who are focused on their own goals. Software engineers are accountable to their bosses before the…

In sufficiently complex systems, you can always blame someone else if you're motivated to do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IssR_J0QWr4 But ultimately there's always a software engineer involved in the creation of software - and that's not true of any of the other roles you mentioned. Since software engineers are necessary and sufficient to produce software, they should always be held responsible, and any oath s…

The problem is, software can be really complex it's possible to make it so no one programmer can understand the whole picture. The tasks can be divided so the individual programmers are given order like "do X in condition of Y" which itself seems harmless and lawful, but combining them lead to malicious behaviours.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#114

Post by ogou »

Yeah ok. Only if it works as an escape clause for NDAs. If we can’t talk about the chain of management decisions that led to being asked to implement something unethical, then a personal oath is only something to be used against us. If an ethically conflicted engineer ever asks “why” they always get the same answer, “because it’s what the client/department head/CTO wants.” I have never worked at a company that takes any moral implications of technology seriously. Money rules all.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#115

Post by p1necone »

wolco wrote: post #93
jrumbut wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think making a statement as an industry helps avoid some of this stuff even being asked. With research you can easily find doctors who are brought in to assist with torture or other heinous crimes, but in general I would expect it to be harder to find a doctor to help with my project of creating a more addictive cigarette versus finding a web developer to help me market them. There's some (not a lot, but some) powe…

You would lose the ability to practise medicine as a license is required. Do you want to license software developers?

I think we should license some software developers - if you're developing software to be used in industries where the people using your software need to be licensed (i.e medical equipment, structural engineering, industrial control systems) then perhaps the software engineers should be similarly rigorously qualified.

But if you're working on video games, or pizza delivery, or really probably like 90% of software then no.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#117

Post by wisty »

XorNot wrote: post #98
Someone1234 wrote: post #32

Doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath (because it is incompatible with a lot of difficult situations doctors are placed in). But more to the point: Why are we trying to shift focus from the wrongs large multi-nationals do to individual software engineers? Plus what would the result be if this "oath" conflicts with a manager's instructions? Maybe we should start with Microsoft, Google, Comcast, Oracle, and simil…

This absolutely reeks of the corporate effort to undermine action of climate change or environmental policy in general: advertising campaigns being run with a focus on individual responsibility to consume less, save water etc. as a way to divert attention from systemic action which would have an impact by controlling the biggest contributors.

Whistle blower protection laws, and regulators with teeth being more likely to be effective?

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#118

Post by skissane »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #103
tfehring wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In sufficiently complex systems, you can always blame someone else if you're motivated to do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IssR_J0QWr4 But ultimately there's always a software engineer involved in the creation of software - and that's not true of any of the other roles you mentioned. Since software engineers are necessary and sufficient to produce software, they should always be held responsible, and any oath s…

So management bears no blame for requiring illegal work be done, on pain of termination? Said another way, engineers now need to be technical and legal experts in the business domain? (Remember employees in the US depend on the company for health insurance. Saying 'no' could cost a lot more than just ones position.) Most software engineers are not like doctors. We have little autonomy over what is created. Our respon…

> Said another way, engineers now need to be technical and legal experts in the business domain?

Consider something like the 737 MAX debacle – did the programmers writing the MCAS code actually have enough aviation domain knowledge and understanding of where the component fit in the overall system to realise it was a threat to people's lives?

I don't know, but my guess is the most likely answer is "No".

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#120

Post by qyv »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #103
tfehring wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In sufficiently complex systems, you can always blame someone else if you're motivated to do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IssR_J0QWr4 But ultimately there's always a software engineer involved in the creation of software - and that's not true of any of the other roles you mentioned. Since software engineers are necessary and sufficient to produce software, they should always be held responsible, and any oath s…

So management bears no blame for requiring illegal work be done, on pain of termination? Said another way, engineers now need to be technical and legal experts in the business domain? (Remember employees in the US depend on the company for health insurance. Saying 'no' could cost a lot more than just ones position.) Most software engineers are not like doctors. We have little autonomy over what is created. Our respon…

"I was only following orders."

Edit to add: If you are being asked to perform illegal or unethical acts as part of your employment, then perhaps termination is an ideal course of action? Unless of course your personal enrichment outweighs legalities or ethics in your worldview?

Post reply on HN