Electrical Engineers, if they join the IEEE, are asked to uphold their code of ethics: https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
Mechanical Engineers have a similar one (ASM).
This is not novel.
Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers
501–510 of 544 posts
Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, a variety of references here: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/73132/did-boein... Although to be fair my summary wasn't entirely accurate - it wasn't that a MAX was outright dynamically unstable with no control input, as I described, but rather not sufficiently stable as to cause a monotonic increase in stick force as AOA increases, which can cause the combined system of pilot + flight dynamics to b…
Right -- it didn't give the exact same feedback to the pilot that the regular 737 did, which was why MCAS was created. The aircraft is no more or less unstable than a regular 737. The original 737 does exactly the same thing the Max does with respect to producing a pitch-up moment -- as does nearly every other aircraft. It's just not nearly as pronounced as the Max is.
I'm sorry, none of that is correct. Did you read my link? The aircraft doesn't meet FAA regulations without the MCAS.
>The Boeing 737 MAX MCAS system is there ONLY to meet the FAA longitudinal stability requirements as specified in FAR Section 25.173, and in particular part (c) which mandates "stick force vs speed curve:, and also FAR Section 25.203 — "Stall characteristics".
Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
static void destroyBaghdad() { destroyCity("Baghdad"); } Here, it's done.
20% success rate there. https://geotargit.com/called.php?qcity=Baghdad
No, no, it's working as intended. Product Management failed to properly define the spec, the software works as defined.
Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers
#504Absolutely not. No. No again. A thousand times, no. The reason that doctors take an oath is because their practice directly affects people. A patient puts their leg, their heart, their eyes right into the doctors hands. Any mistake, any "experiments"... this directly harms the patient in an objective way. A "do no harm" oath doesn't work with software. A software engineer writes a piece of code. This can be used for…
There's checking people using your libs downstream (which, admittedly, is quite hard to do) and there's not writing software for cruise missiles. > This can be used for good, or evil, but by whose standard? Your own. The oath is taken by humans, and humans differ in opinion - no one can impose an absolute standard on you, and you follow your oath as you understand it. There's no board to deprive you of your license i…
> cruise missiles
Cruise missiles aren't necessarily evil, quite the opposite, they could be guaranteeing Liberty.
Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe that's the point of this oath? Software engineers will refuse to work on these areas, unless demands of the oath can be met.
A doctor refusing to do a procedure because he worries for his patient is seen as a good guy doing what is right, he is in his opinion saving a life. In addition he is trying to avoid the massive cost of a medical malpractice suit. A software developer refusing a job because it does not meet his ethical parameters is just an unemployed software engineer.
I think one of the issues is the domain of is vast. One developer may be working on a basic CRUD app while the next is working safety critical code on a vessel going to Mars.
There are definitely areas where the prudent thing for a developer to do is raise a dissenting opinion, if not halting work. What seems lacking is clear industry consensus standards to back up that decision.
Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe that's the point of this oath? Software engineers will refuse to work on these areas, unless demands of the oath can be met.
If a doctor says no, it's because of legal liability and risk to licence. For the same reason, it's harder to hire some rando budget doctor because the field is gate-keeped by the requirement of a licence, and liability. You can't magically make Engineering the same without the same conditions. Add barriers top entry that see my pay rise, or have cheap programmers with no liability.
Engineering already has these barriers, they just aren’t required or enforced.
I’ve never been on a project that requires a software product stamped by a licensed engineer. NCEES dropped the software license because there was so little demand, compared to, say, civil engineers who consider a license a rite of passage to career growth.
Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
The oath should be for everybody involved in the process. After the 2008 mortgage crisis, Netherland required everybody working at banks to take the banker's oath, which is mostly about balancing the interests of the 4 main stakeholders of the bank: shareholders, customers, employee, and society. It's pretty broad, it doesn't magically fix everything, but it does make everybody more aware of their responsibilities. M…
Where do you draw the line though? Does everyone employed in any capacity at any kind of business have to take an oath? It seems to me that if everyone has to promise to do no evil, the meaning of such oaths would become diluted.
Do all those businesses have a problem with unethical behaviour causing serious problems in society?
Doctors, bankers and apparently software engineers have a pretty big impact on society, and often in ways that aren't very transparent to most other people. It's quite possible there are other professions that have a similar impact, but I'm pretty sure it's not all.
I think registered accountants also have some sort of oath, again because various stakeholders including society as a whole has to be able to trust them.
Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers
#508You first, management.
Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my limited information the MCAS code was primarily causing problems in association of incorrect readings by damaged sensors. Of course one could argue that this is an engineering failure because the MCAS failed to account for wrong sensor input but when you consider the legal implications of a MCAS fallback there is actually not much that can be done on the software side. The MCAS is an optional component that r…
> he works at wants to use the MCAS for a non ethical purpose (namely operate and hide the existence of MCAS even when it is unsafe to do so). You think a programmer, handed a spec and asked to implement it, can be expected to know that their employer (or the employer's customer) wants to use it for a "non ethical purpose"? Again, I can't know for sure, but I doubt the programmers who wrote MCAS (who most likely didn…
What the actual hazard analysis showed is that Boeing did not have the technical insight at the right level.
The HA listed MCAS as "hazardous" rather than "catastrophic". Meaning those in charge of that process document did not realize MCAS had the ability to down the airplane. I know it's tempting to arm-chair quarterback this, but let's assume they should have realized this hazard.
To your point, maybe the programmer doesn't have the systems knowledge to make those calls, but the process is predicated on somebody having both the technical acumen and the responsibility) for those decisions. This process broke down though.
Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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".
I can’t imagine software engineers staying in a company long enough to acquire it. For this to work, software engineer compensation would need to change radically.
From my experience, software engineers don't rotate nearly as often in traditional cyclical and defense businesses (auto, aerospace) as they do in the FAANG technology sector. There are a lot of grey beards who weren't so grey when they started.