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

121–130 of 544 posts

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

#121

Post by Someone1234 »

dialamac wrote: post #62
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…

> Doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath You have incorrect information. A an abridged or modernized version of the oath is still taken upon graduation of most American MD schools.

Your first sentence contradicts your second. You also pocket-quoted the original post removing key context:

> Doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath (because it is incompatible with a lot of difficult situations doctors are placed in).

The original Hippocratic Oath is no longer used (as both the original post, and you yourself readily admit). Why it is no longer used it highly relevant to this discussion because someone is calling for a Hippocratic Oath-like thing in a different area.

The fact doctors have moved to a less idealized Hippocratic Oath should be a historical lesson, not something we should seek to emulate.

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

#122

Post by booleandilemma »

Yeah sure, except if I refuse to do something my boss will fire me and find someone who will.

And hey, now that remote work is the new hotness, we’re more replaceable than ever!

Before we can be expected to take an oath of any kind, software engineers need to have agency.

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

#123

Post by gonzo41 »

batiudrami wrote: post #19
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…

Being expected to behave ethically is part of being an Engineer regardless of what your boss expects. Now we increasingly see real world negative consequences of the work of software engineers I don't see why they should be any different.

Are you expecting engineers to quit FB and IG and Twitter en masse? Because I'm not. People like money more than each other.

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

#124

Post by Someone1234 »

austincheney wrote: post #84
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…

> Why are we trying to shift focus from the wrongs large multi-nationals do to individual software engineers? Because software engineers are the ones doing the actual work. By imposing an ethical standard on the people doing the real work the multinational executives then either accept that limitation or knowingly accept risks from intentionally violating the spirit of that limitation.

Reads like an argument for unionization more than a simple "oath."

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

#125

Post by chmln »

> If you look today at who is studying an AP course for computer science in an American high school, what you will see is a group of people that are more male, white, urban, and more affluent than the country as a whole. That is what we need to address

As a male, white, urban, and affluent, perhaps he could demand to get replaced by a POC like some corporate board members have done, instead of endlessly yapping and proudly showing off his self-hating racism.

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

#126

Post by peteradio »

walrus01 wrote: post #40
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…

> Software engineers are accountable to their bosses before their users, no matter how high minded we like to pretend to be. I agree to a very limited extent about the hierarchical nature of a typical corporation, but I also disagree. Software engineers at a certain level of their career and with relatively uncommon skills can pick and choose what companies they want to work at. In my opinion people of good moral cha…

Would you accept any job under penalty of imprisonment for violating grey ethical rules?

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

#127

Post by ryandrake »

tfehring wrote: post #111
wolco wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. I can’t believe all the blame-shifting I’m reading in this thread! It’s as if software engineers are suddenly these powerless victims, lacking agency over their work, only capable of saying “yes, boss, whatever you say, boss!”

If a civil engineer’s manager told them to design an unsafe building or bridge, they’re not going to just say, “Sure thing manager! One death trap coming right up!” It is their ethical duty to build it safely.

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

#128

Post by Ygg2 »

tfehring wrote: post #111
wolco wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that the start and goal are so far away you can legitimately claim you can't see the actual harm in writing something.

You write a tool for let's say recognizing faces. Will it be used for login onto computer? Tracking dissidents? IDing corpses? Who knows.

What if you start as something 100% ethical. But your company pivots to unethical application?

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

#129

Post by wolco »

eat_veggies wrote: post #29

It's hard to see this as anything but a way for executives to foist responsibility upon software engineers when things go wrong (and of course, claim credit and profit when they go right) as other commenters have pointed out. That said, this might actually work! If a software engineer can suffer personal harm by working for a business with iffy ethics, then they are incentivized to play it safe by avoiding working fo…

Wouldn't offshoring lower liability? If you can blame the developer why not offsource that or better outsource and remove any responsibility from the company.

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

#130

Post by paulryanrogers »

qyv wrote: post #120
paulryanrogers wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

And I wasn't implying engineers should be entirely blameless. Everyone has a limited understanding of legal systems too complex for one person to fully grasp. And workers far below the level of decision makers should be judged according to evidence of their knowledge and responsibility. Likewise those who give orders should bear more responsibly.

All these "companies take on a life of their own" arguments sound a lot like executives priming the pump of potential jurors with excuses. If decision makers cannot bear responsibility because of a company size or organizational structure then we can make some sizes and structures illegal before they stumble/march into devastating incompetence.

Post reply on HN