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

231–240 of 544 posts

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

#231

Post by ozim »

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…

Just check out cases of VW software devs who added code for emission test cheating. Check out the case of dev who was copy-pasting code at Toyota.

Illegal stuff is illegal because not knowing the law is no excuse. For your own safety and good, you better have some grasp on legal stuff in your domain. Don't have to be an expert.

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

#234

Post by janstenpickle »

Here's an anecdote echoing many of the other comments:

I attended an event about AI ethics a couple of years ago, many of the panelists were getting very excited about the upcoming AI eithics guidlines from the IEEE and how it would set a gold standard for state level AI development. They were completely unaware that the IEEE already has a general code of ethics[0], which many governments implicitly require engineers in certain roles to ignore.

[0] https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html

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

#235

Post by znpy »

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…

not to mention that software is reusable: a technology might be invented with all the good intentions and ideals... and later be used for evil purposes.

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

#236

Post by mrunkel »

andi999 wrote: post #204
leeoniya wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is precisely the problem. few physicists knew they were all collectively building a nuclear bomb because the big picture was well compartmentalized. feynman only found out because he picked the locks of his colleagues to piece it all together.

Can you point to the part of the book where it is stated that only few physicist (not including Feynman) knew this? I remember it very differently. From my memory: - lock picking was for fun and didnt gain info - some warehouse workers didnt know about critical mass of uranium and stored the stuff to closely together

This is my recollection too.

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

#237

Post by znpy »

tfehring wrote: post #167
paulryanrogers wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Engineers should know enough about their business domains to understand the ethical impacts of their work. This would be more reasonable in the era of 10-20 years in the same company or industry. Needing to job hop every 2-3 years for a decent raise, and software skills applying to a vast array of industries, makes it less reasonable IMO. > ...but I'm far less sympathetic for anyone making 5+ times the median US in…

> This would be more reasonable in the era of 10-20 years in the same company or industry. Needing to job hop every 2-3 years for a decent raise, and software skills applying to a vast array of industries, makes it less reasonable IMO. Yeah, to be clear, I don't think software engineers have an infinite level of responsibility for understanding the ethical implications of their work. If you were a software engineer a…

> Yeah, to be clear, I don't think software engineers have an infinite level of responsibility for understanding the ethical implications of their work.

Yep. That's more the responsibility of product managers, upper managements and chief architects/engineers.

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

#238

Post by austincheney »

ShinTakuya wrote: post #224
austincheney wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm sure when someone gives you the choice between continued employment and following the ethical standard you'll choose to follow the ethical standard. I mean, don't get me wrong, there are clear scenarios where I think many of us would choose to lose the job. For instance, I'll go unemployed vs directly causing someone to die. But those slightly more ambiguous scenarios are where we need to be enforcing it on a leg…

That is the difference between an industry with ethics and an industry without. When ethics are the standard of employment an ethics violation prevents employement at any employer.

An example is a lawyer having a disagreement with their law firm may lose their job, but they are still employable. On the other hand if that lawyer loses their law license they lose their current job and cannot get another job at any law firm. In that very real scenario when there is a choice between employment and following the ethical standard the choice is always clearly the later.

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

#239

Post by sjellis »

Brad Smith has been with Microsoft since 1993, and is one of the lawyers that enabled the business practices that made Microsoft notorious, and the target of multiple legal actions. Microsoft only settled with the DOJ in 2002. The company pursued policies of forced upgrades to Windows 10 and aggressive use of telemetry whilst he was president.

Feel free to tell us how your professional ethics as a lawyer enabled you to make change at Microsoft before you were general counsel and president, Brad. Or after you got the top jobs.

Post reply on HN