4 ms·

I find it disturbing too. Right now one of the top stories on HN is about Amazon Go and the top comment is about whether the destruction of jobs it could cause

I find it disturbing too. Right now one of the top stories on HN is about Amazon Go and the top comment is about whether the destruction of jobs it could cause is socially acceptable. I don't know whether that is politics or not but I can't imagine discussing Amazon Go as a technology without having that discussion. In fact when you look at HN very little is about particular technologies. Most of our discussion is around the implications.

mattnewton 10y ago
I can't agree enough. I'm all for flagging uncivilized discussions, but preemptively censoring things that might turn into uncivilized discussions seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater - we need to be able to talk about difficult things.
- mightybyte 10y ago
  We need to be able to talk about them, but it doesn't need to be here. There's value in places where you know you can come to discuss certain categories of things and avoid others. That is what's going on here.
  - golemotron 10y ago
    It seems that because social implications of technology can lead to political discussion, it's out of bounds.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    I'm not arguing for a free for all, I am arguing that the proposed ban on politics for a week is too broad a brush, because it catches several relevant conversations, and the serious offsenses are already against the rules.
michaelchisari 10y ago
I've been attending a lot of AI/Data Science conferences lately, and it's incredible to me how this is not a major part of any conversation about AI and automation. A talk I recently attended by a data scientist from Amazon had him gloating about how many jobs he could eliminate. Ironically, the only speaker who brought it up as a major social problem we'll have to tackle is someone from Uber. His solution was less than satisfactory, but at least he recognized the issue. I don't want to pretend we live in a world of algorithms without consequence.
- karambahh 10y ago
  As a "data scientist" myself and more importantly as a human being, I witness the same behaviour almost every day and it baffles me. Yes, what we do can have consequences. We need to think about that! I have friends working for weapons manufacturers. They don't gloat about building stuff that can blow children up!!! Why the hell should we be absolved from any moral consequences for our acts? I am not equating elimating jobs and kill children, but I would prefer if our industry abstained from any thought on the consequences of its trades. I once had to choose between working for a weapons manufacturers for a very nice salary. I chose not to work for them. But I thoroughly thought about it and I don't blame my friends for making a different choice. I politically object to that choice, but it does not mean I am some sort of white knight...and it does not mean that sometimes in the future, if presented with another opportunity, I wouldn't make a different choice...
  - bduerst 10y ago
    It's the gun-manufacturer/shooter dissociation. Anecdotally, I had a neighbor who programmed the guidance systems for bombs, and the only reason I remember him is because immediately after introducing himself as such, he followed up with, "But I'm not the one who's dropping them. By making them smarter I can save lives". I think that no matter how technically intelligent a field's operators are, they are still subject to the same dissociations as everyone else.
    - karambahh 10y ago
      You are absolutely right and I can totally relate to both your experience and your neighbor's. I don't program guidance systems for bombs, but I program marketing tools which are, in essence, tricking consumers into buying stuff. I dissociate myself with that issue by considering that any commercial relationship is based on tricking the other party into buying more stuff, but I would totally understand if someone objected that my software is not morally acceptable to them (and I would politely suggest that they go bother someone else :p ). Further down the line, we could end up discussing if living in a society based on capitalism is "right" or "wrong". I would totally understand if people considered that as "not an HN worthy submission", but I think that inside a thread on the moral, philosophical and social consequences of AI, it could come up as a subject...and be down-voted if need be, not flagged as off-topic.
karambahh 10y ago
As technology inclined people, I consider it our duty to have that discussion. We work on technologies that impact, in one way or another, other people's life. As you correctly point out, the discussion of the social impacts of Amazon Go is currently open in another thread and I consider that a must. Other example of the need of politics in here and in our heads when we design something is the case of Tristan Harris [0], as a former Google employee. I am not saying I agree with Tristan Harris, or with one side or the other in the Amazon Go thread, but I consider HN as a place where civil political debate needs to take place, because we have a moral duty to have it. We are, in a way, the 1% of "technologically aware people" (and probably among the world top 10% wealthiest...). We need to discuss these issues and we need to think before we act. I'm not trying to re-enact the 99% battle, but our privileges do come with a price and that price is thinking before we act... I urge people on Amazon Go team to have that discussion. Do they consider working on that project socially acceptable for them or not, and why? Do I consider, as a SaaS marketing provider, my job as socially acceptable, and why? That is something I, both as a citizen and a business owner, need to think about and openly discuss with my customers, shareholders and consumers/citizens if need be. I will probably kick down an open door, but the etymology of politics is politika "affairs of the cities": aren't we all, as technology workers/operators/... all living in these cities? [0]http://www.realclearlife.com/2016/10/27/former-google-product-philosopher-thinks-technology-is-purposely-addictive/ http://www.realclearlife.com/2016/10/27/former-google-produc...
yagga 10y ago
With automation, robotics and AI the world does not need so many bio-robots anymore. Before we needed dumb people to do manual labor. Not anymore. Machines can do it. Most of people don't want to learn and change. What to do with the bio-mass that can only eat, shit and have fun?

mattnewton 10y ago

I can't agree enough. I'm all for flagging uncivilized discussions, but preemptively censoring things that might turn into uncivilized discussions seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater - we need to be able to talk about difficult things.

mightybyte 10y ago
We need to be able to talk about them, but it doesn't need to be here. There's value in places where you know you can come to discuss certain categories of things and avoid others. That is what's going on here.
- golemotron 10y ago
  It seems that because social implications of technology can lead to political discussion, it's out of bounds.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  I'm not arguing for a free for all, I am arguing that the proposed ban on politics for a week is too broad a brush, because it catches several relevant conversations, and the serious offsenses are already against the rules.

michaelchisari 10y ago

I've been attending a lot of AI/Data Science conferences lately, and it's incredible to me how this is not a major part of any conversation about AI and automation. A talk I recently attended by a data scientist from Amazon had him gloating about how many jobs he could eliminate. Ironically, the only speaker who brought it up as a major social problem we'll have to tackle is someone from Uber. His solution was less than satisfactory, but at least he recognized the issue. I don't want to pretend we live in a world of algorithms without consequence.

karambahh 10y ago
As a "data scientist" myself and more importantly as a human being, I witness the same behaviour almost every day and it baffles me. Yes, what we do can have consequences. We need to think about that! I have friends working for weapons manufacturers. They don't gloat about building stuff that can blow children up!!! Why the hell should we be absolved from any moral consequences for our acts? I am not equating elimating jobs and kill children, but I would prefer if our industry abstained from any thought on the consequences of its trades. I once had to choose between working for a weapons manufacturers for a very nice salary. I chose not to work for them. But I thoroughly thought about it and I don't blame my friends for making a different choice. I politically object to that choice, but it does not mean I am some sort of white knight...and it does not mean that sometimes in the future, if presented with another opportunity, I wouldn't make a different choice...
- bduerst 10y ago
  It's the gun-manufacturer/shooter dissociation. Anecdotally, I had a neighbor who programmed the guidance systems for bombs, and the only reason I remember him is because immediately after introducing himself as such, he followed up with, "But I'm not the one who's dropping them. By making them smarter I can save lives". I think that no matter how technically intelligent a field's operators are, they are still subject to the same dissociations as everyone else.
  - karambahh 10y ago
    You are absolutely right and I can totally relate to both your experience and your neighbor's. I don't program guidance systems for bombs, but I program marketing tools which are, in essence, tricking consumers into buying stuff. I dissociate myself with that issue by considering that any commercial relationship is based on tricking the other party into buying more stuff, but I would totally understand if someone objected that my software is not morally acceptable to them (and I would politely suggest that they go bother someone else :p ). Further down the line, we could end up discussing if living in a society based on capitalism is "right" or "wrong". I would totally understand if people considered that as "not an HN worthy submission", but I think that inside a thread on the moral, philosophical and social consequences of AI, it could come up as a subject...and be down-voted if need be, not flagged as off-topic.

karambahh 10y ago

As technology inclined people, I consider it our duty to have that discussion. We work on technologies that impact, in one way or another, other people's life. As you correctly point out, the discussion of the social impacts of Amazon Go is currently open in another thread and I consider that a must. Other example of the need of politics in here and in our heads when we design something is the case of Tristan Harris [0], as a former Google employee. I am not saying I agree with Tristan Harris, or with one side or the other in the Amazon Go thread, but I consider HN as a place where civil political debate needs to take place, because we have a moral duty to have it. We are, in a way, the 1% of "technologically aware people" (and probably among the world top 10% wealthiest...). We need to discuss these issues and we need to think before we act. I'm not trying to re-enact the 99% battle, but our privileges do come with a price and that price is thinking before we act... I urge people on Amazon Go team to have that discussion. Do they consider working on that project socially acceptable for them or not, and why? Do I consider, as a SaaS marketing provider, my job as socially acceptable, and why? That is something I, both as a citizen and a business owner, need to think about and openly discuss with my customers, shareholders and consumers/citizens if need be. I will probably kick down an open door, but the etymology of politics is politika "affairs of the cities": aren't we all, as technology workers/operators/... all living in these cities? [0]http://www.realclearlife.com/2016/10/27/former-google-product-philosopher-thinks-technology-is-purposely-addictive/ http://www.realclearlife.com/2016/10/27/former-google-produc...

yagga 10y ago

With automation, robotics and AI the world does not need so many bio-robots anymore. Before we needed dumb people to do manual labor. Not anymore. Machines can do it. Most of people don't want to learn and change. What to do with the bio-mass that can only eat, shit and have fun?