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

511–520 of 544 posts

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

#511

Post by mlindner »

kabacha wrote: post #270
mlindner wrote: post #267

Hippocratic Oath is the wrong thing. Software Engineers need to act like real Engineers, namely certifications, accepted practices and penalization (revocation of certifications) if accepted practices aren't followed. Software Engineering needs live up to it's actual name and stop being just "programmers".

No please. Let's not take 1 step forward and 10 steps back. Software engineer culture is already light-years ahead of pretty much every medium in every regard ranging from inclusivity to simple fun factors. Certifications is meaningless corporate propaganda and we should eliminate it completely unless it's free and public.

Disagree. Without standards we as a group hold ourselves there's no improvement.

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

#512

Post by rektide »

Quick retort, i'd roughly sketch out the problems with software as 10% personal ethical issues & 90% as leadership/organizational/constraint/related.

Engineers want time & resources to do a good job, to make sure things are well considered. It is capital that drives us to push for expediency & convenience.

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

#513

Post by jimnotgym »

coldcode wrote: post #368
jimnotgym wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed it is the same with Chartered Accountants. Management can make whatever decisions they think they can make, but an accountant won't inact things that are unethical at the risk of their charter and professional standing.

You really believe many people with won't violate their oaths and associations and licenses for enough money? Accountants audited Bernie Madoff and Wirecard for years and "saw nothing". Michael Jackson hired a surgeon to pump him full of drugs for $150K a month. Money > Ethics for a lot of people.

No I don't. But it does stop a lot of blatant rule breaking where external parties can see the rules being broken.

Your comment about auditors is such a common misunderstanding that it has a name, the 'expectation gap'. Auditors are not there to detect fraud.

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

#514

Post by Ygg2 »

BeetleB wrote: post #494
Ygg2 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they pivot after my work is done, I won't feel responsible. So if you invented dynamite you wouldn't feel responsible for its use? But, let's change it a bit more personal. You write an awesome OSS yaml parser. It's so good, that GFW of China uses it as a main component, and this gets published in the news. What would you do? Nothing you did changed, but suddenly your work is powering an unethical component.

> So if you invented dynamite you wouldn't feel responsible for its use? I would if I were inventing dynamite, but that's not what this scenario is. A person working for a knife manufacturer need not worry about it being used for murder, as that's not what the primary use. And facial recognition is a lot less harmful than even that . Trust me: I work for a company that produces certain goods used for all kinds of goo…

> I would if I were inventing dynamite

> I wouldn't do anything:

That's hypocritical. Nobel didn't invent dynamite because he wanted people to blow themselves up. He invented dynamite because nitro-glycerin was a horrid mess used in mining.

He definitely didn't have an easy technical solution to problem of people misusing dynamite.

You can either say in both case do nothing, or in both case do something.

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

#515

Post by austincheney »

bsenftner wrote: post #385
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.

No, we are merely the technical hands of our management's will. AS IF WE HAVE A CHOICE WHAT WE DEVELOP! This is an asinine attempt to blame those not in control. The managers and the owners and the corporate board need to have this Ethics Oath, and it needs to be enforced by law.

You have a choice in how it’s developed and so ethics applies. In all fairness doctors don’t choose their patients and legal aide do not choose their clients and yet they are still ethically bound.

All of this fear and crying about management only demonstrates a gross ignorance of what ethics are.

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

#516

Post by BeetleB »

Ygg2 wrote: post #514
BeetleB wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if you invented dynamite you wouldn't feel responsible for its use? I would if I were inventing dynamite, but that's not what this scenario is. A person working for a knife manufacturer need not worry about it being used for murder, as that's not what the primary use. And facial recognition is a lot less harmful than even that . Trust me: I work for a company that produces certain goods used for all kinds of goo…

> I would if I were inventing dynamite > I wouldn't do anything: That's hypocritical. Nobel didn't invent dynamite because he wanted people to blow themselves up. He invented dynamite because nitro-glycerin was a horrid mess used in mining. He definitely didn't have an easy technical solution to problem of people misusing dynamite. You can either say in both case do nothing, or in both case do something.

> You can either say in both case do nothing, or in both case do something.

If I lived in a world lacking in nuance, I would agree. I do not live in that world.

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

#518

Post by DreamScatter »

hmmnotsureif wrote: post #20

I think we need to go well beyond a Hippocratic oath. Most Software Engineering Degrees require an ethics course. Yet - we still have the issues we have today. Asking for good intentions isn't going to change outcomes, because Software Engineers already have good intentions. Nothing will change. How about Software Engineering Licensure? You have been found to contribute glaring security issues in widespread code? Los…

This doesn't generalize very well, since a lot of software is written by volunteers making open source software. Those people aren't employed, and exempt from getting fired. People who own their own software business also can't be fired. Overall, what you propose doesn't make sense.

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

#520

Post by GuB-42 »

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…

Agree.

A software engineer is more like a chemist working for the pharmaceutical industry than a doctor treating patients. And chemists typically don't have an Hippocratic Oath. Pharmacists sometimes have their own version, but it is mostly about giving good advise to patients and respecting them as human beings.

But it doesn't stop the pharmaceutical industry from being heavily regulated, and while their business practices are often criticized, the drugs that come out of it are generally safe and effective. Many countries also have regulations making important drugs (ex: vaccines) accessible to everyone.

Post reply on HN