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

531–540 of 544 posts

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

#531

Post by tekknik »

imtringued wrote: post #329
skissane wrote: post #118

Earlier 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".

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…

How quickly after refusing work will the engineer be fired?

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

#532

Post by tekknik »

walrus01 wrote: post #186
quickthrower2 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more abstract the problem the less people care. Police suffocating someone to death > 1,000,000 people being subtly spied on. "I got nothing to hide" after all.

The farther away and more abstract the problem, it's absolutely more difficult to get people to care. Trying to get Americans to care about what's going on with prison camps in Xinjiang province right now is difficult, if not impossible, outside of the subset of people who deeply care about the issues involved.

In this specific example say we do care, then what? What will it change? (Not theoretical change, actual change)

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

#533

Post by bumby »

Chris2048 wrote: post #529
bumby wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You need a licence to practice medicine, if there is something called a "license" for engineering but isn't required for practise, then it's not the same. If we have the same barriers, but not enforced, then we don't have the same barriers.

That’s not quite right. You actually do need a state license in the US to practice engineering for the public except for a few basic instances:

1) you work for the federal government

2) you work under a licensed engineer

3) you work under an industrial exemption

There’s differences depending on state. There has been a more concerted effort to remove #3 recently due to both political reasons and the technical issues in this thread. Most people performing engineering work under an industrial exemption don’t actually realize it. Again, this is different state to state. For example, in some states you can’t start a business with “engineering” in the name unless you have a certain percentage of owners/principals with an engineering license.[1]

What actually happens is conflating terms in common parlance. “Engineer” and “engineer” are not necessarily the same. For example, a computer engineer may work under an industrial exemption (due to working in a manufacturing service) while a software engineer does not. Legally, an “Engineer” claims an explicit responsibility to public safety.[2] Apropos to the headline article, there is a distinction with this difference.

[1] https://fxbinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/state-by-state...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/progr...

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

#534

Post by jki275 »

dTal wrote: post #502
jki275 wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

It's exactly correct. The two points aren't in opposition.

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

#536

Post by [deleted] »

jki275 wrote: post #534
dTal wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

It's exactly correct. The two points aren't in opposition.

[deleted]

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

#537

Post by pixelbash »

ryandrake wrote: post #127
tfehring wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This argument is more akin to saying its the builders responsibility to decide whether a bad architectural decision should be built or not. They might bring it up, but it's not really expected that they get to decide.

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

#538

Post by ex_amazon_sde »

randomdata wrote: post #459
ex_amazon_sde wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software engineering isn't medicine. It isn't that difficult to learn I would never hire someone that treats software engineering as something easier that medicine or other branches of engineering.

Easy to say when you've never hired anyone. The parent is right. Software engineering is advantaged by a much more simplistic feedback loop. Software's "Hello, World" is validated in milliseconds. Medicine's "Hello, World" could take 30 years of clinical trials to ensure that you haven't killed anyone. It is easy because it is quick, allowing a greater understanding within an equal amount of time. In fact, the adage…

> Easy to say when you've never hired anyone.

Funny how you can make that statement.

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

#539

Post by reagent_finder »

Really, Brad? Software Engineers need a hippocratic oath?

This is the most hypocritical, low-minded dirty blow, pass-the-buck mentality I have seen in a long time. That's even counting most of what Trump has said. You should be ashamed of yourself, Brad.

How dare you make that remark when your WHOLE PLATFORM is built on shady business practices and monopoly leveraging? How dare you try to shunt the blame on software engineers when YOU YOURSELF profit from lack of ethics and participate in systematic blacklisting of engineers? You earn seven figures a year AT LEAST and are trying to blame people just doing their jobs, and telling them they should look at the big picture and they should "have principles" to basically refuse to work or quit? While at the same time actively preventing these kinds of people from finding ethical work elsewhere?

Put your money where your mouth is or stop spewing Trumpian bullshit, Brad. Anybody who buys this needs to have their head examined. With a cactus.

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

#540

Post by m463 »

tfehring wrote: post #41
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…

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…

With a combination of local engineers, remote engineers in other countries, mechanical turk and some sleight of hand, I wonder if you could craft a nefarious project where nobody knows the whole picture.
Post reply on HN