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

Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 225 posts

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#131

Post by matt4077 »

mspecter wrote: post #103
ABCLAW wrote: post #27

I think the imposition of this burden on engineers is the result of our belief that our legislators are too incompetent or unwilling to act in the fact of clear moral hazards. Tech has a very strong history of conscientious objectors. They're not the problem. Other institutions need to do their part.

A moral hazard happens when an entity is somehow insured against something (e.g. health insurance), so is rationally more likely to behave in some "bad" way (e.g. driving recklessly). I'm not seeing how this a moral hazard, do you just mean "immoral"?

It’s a somewhat stupid example, because nobody endangers their own life just because they have health insurance.

Smoking instead of reckless driving may make it (slightly) more understandable.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#132

Post by int_19h »

Retra wrote: post #28
kevintb wrote: post #18

Disheartening to see so many apathetic or downright hostile responses on here. I applaud this article for taking a stand.

There's no point in taking a stand if it means relinquishing responsibility. You'd rather have weapons in the hands of pacifists than warmongers, but that won't happen if pacifists "conscientiously object" and throw down their arms; police brutality isn't eliminated by making it a job that appeals only to bullies; and software development doesn't become ethical by asking everyone with a sense of ethics to quit. What…

I don't see "asking everyone with a sense of ethics to quit" software development, though. I'm seeing a call to refuse working on things that are unethical. Most software engineering does not involve working on projects that have immediate side effects that significantly impact human rights and freedoms. To build on your police analogy, this is about asking police officers to refuse to enforce policies such as "stop and frisk".

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#133

Post by mc32 »

int_19h wrote: post #130
mc32 wrote: post #16

I think this is s bit naive. Americans and EU citizens could conceivably follow some protocol such that what they produce will not go against certain principles (if we even presume no such thing as dual use tech), but that would do little to stifle and control developers outside this sphere. Vladimir, Jinping, Jeong-Un, Narendra, etc., aren’t about to handicap themselves and have some realization, oh, you know what g…

I get the point you're making, and it's valid... but "Vladimir, Jinping, Jeong-Un, Narendra, etc" is a bit offensive. One's ethnic background, and even citizenship, does not define one's morality. Take a look at the list of names on http://neveragain.tech/ - it's not all Americans and Europeans.

I think you might have misunderstood me. Those leaders are not going to respect whatever ethics are set up and will ensure their own developers do what they are told irrespective of this effort. Calling out those leaders isn’t an affront to their citizens any more than calling out George W (or Obama or Trump) is an affront to Americans.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#134

Post by zwkrt »

mspecter wrote: post #103
ABCLAW wrote: post #27

I think the imposition of this burden on engineers is the result of our belief that our legislators are too incompetent or unwilling to act in the fact of clear moral hazards. Tech has a very strong history of conscientious objectors. They're not the problem. Other institutions need to do their part.

A moral hazard happens when an entity is somehow insured against something (e.g. health insurance), so is rationally more likely to behave in some "bad" way (e.g. driving recklessly). I'm not seeing how this a moral hazard, do you just mean "immoral"?

"Insured" can be interpreted very broadly; moral hazard is whenever the negative outcomes of a risky decision are directed away from oneself. A CEO considering the option of a layoff is a moral hazard as she will make her board happy at the expense of her employees. Either way she has nothing to lose.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#135

Post by killjoywashere »

ABCLAW wrote: post #27

I think the imposition of this burden on engineers is the result of our belief that our legislators are too incompetent or unwilling to act in the fact of clear moral hazards. Tech has a very strong history of conscientious objectors. They're not the problem. Other institutions need to do their part.

I wrote a response to an email today, someone had sent me two ethics position papers. I pigeon-holed my own response after I wrote "it's time policy makers start assuming responsibility for understanding more logic than just policy logic. Math must be part of their domain expertise".

Mainly I shelved my response because I doubt the policy people on the thread would have taken that very well. But the truth is looming large these days.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#136

Post by mspecter »

zwkrt wrote: post #134
mspecter wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A moral hazard happens when an entity is somehow insured against something (e.g. health insurance), so is rationally more likely to behave in some "bad" way (e.g. driving recklessly). I'm not seeing how this a moral hazard, do you just mean "immoral"?

"Insured" can be interpreted very broadly; moral hazard is whenever the negative outcomes of a risky decision are directed away from oneself. A CEO considering the option of a layoff is a moral hazard as she will make her board happy at the expense of her employees. Either way she has nothing to lose.

>"Insured" can be interpreted very broadly; moral hazard is whenever the negative outcomes of a risky decision are directed away from oneself.

Nope! That's called an externality. A moral hazard is a type of externality, but is very focused on a particular set of instances in the definition I provided.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#137

Post by mspecter »

matt4077 wrote: post #131
mspecter wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A moral hazard happens when an entity is somehow insured against something (e.g. health insurance), so is rationally more likely to behave in some "bad" way (e.g. driving recklessly). I'm not seeing how this a moral hazard, do you just mean "immoral"?

It’s a somewhat stupid example, because nobody endangers their own life just because they have health insurance. Smoking instead of reckless driving may make it (slightly) more understandable.

Sure, though, to be pedantic, a common example of moral hazard is the increased likelihood of driving recklessly in the presence of mandatory seat belts. See https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#138

Post by twunde »

ohyes wrote: post #122
robertAngst wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the problem again? You used google while signed in and now the world knows you like barbies? Serious question, because I do not feel violated.

Assume that a hypothetical future government that you find yourself living under is not good. Assume furthermore that a future hypothetical company is equally not good and the two collude to do not good things together. Now assume you’re motivated to do something about it. Sucks for you, they have already predicted that and cleansed you because they know everything you’ve ever read and it was a high probability that…

For those that want a more practical example, Russia has just passed a law requiring that all internet traffic be sent to their equivalent of the NSA and FBI, with all traffic sent in the clear [1]. If you're an adtech company in Russia, with historical data you are probably being subpoenaed for that historical information. Think about Turkey, which has had mass purges since 2016. Academics, judges, ordinary citizens have been jailed or disappeared for having gone to the wrong school, having attended the wrong house of worship, for being friends with the wrong people. The government isn't tracking these people down via paper records, they're tracking them down using ordinary technology.

It's not about step 1, which is to sell you more barbies. It's about step 4, step 5 where suddenly a bad actor has access to all this data and can see that people who make this search have a 10% chance of opposing the current leader/president/ruling party etc.

[1] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/21/russias-sovereign-...

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#139

Post by robertAngst »

ohyes wrote: post #122
robertAngst wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the problem again? You used google while signed in and now the world knows you like barbies? Serious question, because I do not feel violated.

Assume that a hypothetical future government that you find yourself living under is not good. Assume furthermore that a future hypothetical company is equally not good and the two collude to do not good things together. Now assume you’re motivated to do something about it. Sucks for you, they have already predicted that and cleansed you because they know everything you’ve ever read and it was a high probability that…

Isnt the government the problem?

Why punish google?

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#140

Post by [deleted] »

stendinator wrote: post #82
3xblah wrote: post #57

"We are a small - as-of-yet unincorporated - nonprofit providing pro bono consulting on algorithmic and policy issues arising from the proliferation of: Statistical inference / Automated decision making - often called 'AI', ..." From the author's website, listed at the bottom. Imagine if journalists and other people posting to the www called "AI" what it actually is, instead of constantly portraying it as something f…

How would you rewrite that short passage in a way you think is optimal?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN