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

61–70 of 225 posts

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#61

Post by britch »

olalonde wrote: post #49

This article is premised on the idea that basically everything the Chinese government does is unethical, which is debatable. For one, the Chinese government is largely supported by its population. There might actually be engineers working on Dragonfly who do not believe the project is unethical. It's not that black and white...

No not everything the Chinese government does unethical.

I think it's fair to say most of the surveillance technology they're buying is not being used to help people.

Do not forget, the Chinese government is, right now, using surveillance technology to imprison Uighurs.

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#62

Post by AstralStorm »

Retric wrote: post #55
AstralStorm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess who pays the most lobbyists. That on the point of moral hazards.

That’s less sinister than you might think. New legislation is more common for new industries. Consider the internet began as the Arpanet is just 50 years ago. For much of that time the idea that the average person would be online from their own home would have seemed like crazy science fiction.

The thing is, the legislation is tweaked to the benefit of the giants, not against them. At least in general.

Not even federal government with their delusions of absolute control can do anything. (Say, FISA insanity.) Net neutrality was a contest between two big corps. Patent battles ruled to support American business despite clear violations? (Qualcomm et al.) The used to be laws considering encryption to be munitions. Silly attempt to sabotage it AKA Clipper. Yet somehow AI systems to discriminate explicitly sold to opposing regimes are not despite being much more applicable.

On the other hand, there is Comcast and Time Warner.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#63

Post by geofft »

pdimitar wrote: post #52
geofft wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a name for this phenomenon in general? Your phrasing is quite clear but apparently novel, and I think it happens a lot - anti-war clergy don't apply to be military chaplains, so soldiers and commanders hear biased opinions of whether their work is incompatible with their religion compared to civilians of the same faith; people who don't think self-driving cars are a good goal tend not to apply for self-drivi…

Selection bias, filter bubble, self-selection -- all these could apply to a varying degree.

"Filter bubble" is almost right but some of those seem somewhat intentional - the phenomenon here is that even if a porn studio wants to have its employees' prudishness reflect the general population, it can't. Even if the military wants to hire chaplains whose views on just war reflect the general population, it can't. You can usually turn off a filter bubble and you can usually actively avoid self-selection because you're doing it yourself: the phenomenon here is that the selectees are doing the filtering for you.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#64

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

Aunche wrote: post #10

Tech needs fewer conscientious objectors, not more. These people rarely know anything about what they're protesting, and resort fearmongering and populism to get what they want without even attempting to resolve things civilly. The most recent example is Google's AI ethics council debacle. Activist employees were so stubborn that they can't won't even let people have a discussion about AI ethics because one of them h…

> but they managed draft the foundation of modern day democracy anyways.

American democracy. It makes absolute sense that the founding fathers of America are the basis of the modern American democracy, but let's not pretend that they lay sole claim to modern democracy.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#66

Post by mempko »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #4
mfoy_ wrote: post #3

I've long thought that tech needs like.. a guild or trade union, or a professional association of some kind. The problem though, is that it's so easy to get into, so there's no easy way to "police" ourselves, because tech has been democratized so well-- Anyone can do a code boot-camp and be up and running within weeks. Not that that's a bad thing, it just makes it harder to hold developers to a code of ethics or anyt…

We have the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) but it's not promoted or advertised near enough in my opinion to people in the field.

This! I think what I'm going to start doing is to not take any computer professional seriously unless they are an ACM or IEEE member (or similar org in your country).

EDIT: Getting downvoted, clearly not a popular opinion. Are people here not interested in having a strong corporate-independent organization to push the industry forward?

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#67

Post by oedmarap »

I've always ended up with, and still reach the conclusion that there are only two tenable options which will work against a corrupt and unethical system.

1. Infiltrate, subvert, and implode the system from within (that's meant to be as Tzu-esque as it sounds).

2. Using parallel propaganda to get the public to realize that they have the ability to disable the system if they can collectively wield a moral, objective, and ethical compass (with all the McLuhan-esque difficulties that come with it).

I prefer the former. As dangerous as it is, I think it's strategically easier to wield covert action as a tool for effecting change than it is to attempt a unification of the masses. But, maybe a combination of both these approaches would be ideal.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#68

Post by Zaphods »

jammygit wrote: post #40
mfoy_ wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Ontario, at least, "engineer" is a protected designation. http://www.peo.on.ca/

Alberta too. The regulation is coming on very gradually since they're confused about how to define and regulate the title/practice. The regulation won't necessarily help anything but to outlaw a lot of smart people from being able to write certain software. It will put us further behind the USA in our ability to create tech companies that matter (or that can compete with offshoring) and lead to higher unemployment as…

> The regulation won't necessarily help anything but to outlaw a lot of smart people from being able to write certain software. It will put us further behind the USA in our ability to create tech companies that matter (or that can compete with offshoring)

Has any of that happened with engineers in Canada? We still have plenty of engineers.

A lot of this comes off as any industry wanting to hold onto the engineer title without any of the accountability that should come along with it, or really any accountability at all.

I don't want a random self taught engineer involved in building my house or a local highway overpass. So why would I also want a random self taught software engineer working on vital computer systems or on autonomous vehicles or on the software that controls the pitch controls on a Boeing 737? Software is not just some shit-tier SaaS app. It being hard to get official credation means accepting holding oneself to high (legal) standards. If that means lots of people have to go around calling themselves a developer instead of an engineer then I'm fine with that.

It might seem depressing that we hold engineers to high standards and expect legal accountability for the things they sign off on or create or approve, but I think more accountability in the tech industry is a good thing. The modern tech industry and software engineers hold themselves to ludicrously low standards because they basically operate on the idea that innovation = good and if-it-makes-money it must also be good. I know fast food workers who are held to higher standards than software engineers. That many continue to call themselves engineers is mainly just a hold over from a metaphor that describes computer systems as "architecture".

Software is a big deal and it effects every fabric of daily life in 2019. We shouldn't treat it like it's ephemeral stuff that has no consequences beyond the next VC exit or going public.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#69

Post by Retric »

AstralStorm wrote: post #62
Retric wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s less sinister than you might think. New legislation is more common for new industries. Consider the internet began as the Arpanet is just 50 years ago. For much of that time the idea that the average person would be online from their own home would have seemed like crazy science fiction.

The thing is, the legislation is tweaked to the benefit of the giants, not against them. At least in general. Not even federal government with their delusions of absolute control can do anything. (Say, FISA insanity.) Net neutrality was a contest between two big corps. Patent battles ruled to support American business despite clear violations? (Qualcomm et al.) The used to be laws considering encryption to be munitio…

I think the public benifits from that to some degree. A search engine index is inherently a derivative work and without updated legislation could easily qualify as copyright infringement.

I am not saying is fair, but other industries which get away with actually killing people (ex: fine particle pollution from coal power plants). So, bias is somewhat expected from how our system works, it’s just not all bad.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#70

Post by orblivion »

Aunche wrote: post #10

Tech needs fewer conscientious objectors, not more. These people rarely know anything about what they're protesting, and resort fearmongering and populism to get what they want without even attempting to resolve things civilly. The most recent example is Google's AI ethics council debacle. Activist employees were so stubborn that they can't won't even let people have a discussion about AI ethics because one of them h…

I agree they don't have a special understanding of things. I also rolled my eyes at the Heritage Foundation thing, among others.

On the other hand, what's the alternative? "Shut up and code"? Google isn't entitled to their work. We all have to operate by our own moral compass at the end of the day, and if you don't feel comfortable with what you're working on, it doesn't seem unreasonable to resign.

Post reply on HN