7 ms·

Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this? I guess it just comes down to a consequentialism vs deontology whether someone thinks this i

Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this? I guess it just comes down to a consequentialism vs deontology whether someone thinks this is a good idea. And, obviously, if they don't do it, I guess someone else will?

IntronExon 9y ago
This is why software needs an association with some teeth, because professional ethical standards don’t grow on trees. Note how a doctor doesn’t just say, “Well if I don’t dose these people without their knowledge or consent, someone else will.”
- notgoingaway 9y ago
  Fuck no
Rotdhizon 9y ago
There was an article about just that the other week, on here I believe. It was detailing how a lot of the controversial tech ideas coming out of places like silicon valley are from these tech/startup moguls who are so disconnected from reality that they don't understand the concept of ethics or technological consequence. To them it doesn't matter how intrusive a design is, if it solves a problem, then that justifies all negatives.
- rhizome 9y ago
  I'm willing to consider that they're all confused Futurama fans. They heard "technically correct...the best kind of correct!" and transmogrified it to "technically a good idea, the best kind of idea!"
gricardo99 9y ago
The great irony is that often technological innovations are believed to be liberating and done with the motivation of improving the common lot of humanity. Two examples: Social networking - Enabling more meaningful and greater connection between people, leading to greater happiness and fulfillment? Or, fostering more divisions, balkanization into "like" echo chambers, promulgating fear and prejudice, leading to greater depression and mass manipulation? Cryptocurrencies - Disintermediation! need I say more ;) All kinds of utopian views of how this is supposed to promote freedom, security and efficiency. But top of the wish-list for the most paranoid and repressive authoritarian tyrant would have to be a magical way to fully control and monitor all economic activity: A cash-less society where every single transaction is done with the government controlled digital currency, recorded on the government controlled blockchain.
- bringtheaction 9y ago
  But why would I want to use a government controlled blockchain? For me the concept of decentralization is essential to cryptocurrency.
  - gricardo99 9y ago
    Decentralization is not essential to cryptocurrency as a technology. It's essential to a view of how it could be used for the betterment of many. The technology can just as easily be applied for other purposes, mandated by an authoritarian government to be the only legal way to conduct commerce. You'd use it not because you want to, but because you want to avoid their ire.
    - Klathmon 9y ago
      With a single trusted party, a blockchain is just a wildly inefficient database. There's literally no reason to use it at that point, just make a simple db of account numbers and balances.
      - candiodari 9y ago
        Actually there is. 21st century money. It would be actually possible to use a government's money in various new ways. Think of what could happen in the economy if the government provided flexible and free payment services. (Which is exactly why they'll never do it, but just pointing out that a government-controlled blockchain for normal people would have a LOT of applications)
        daveFNbuck 9y ago
        Why do you need blockchain for that if it's centralized and controlled by the government?
        Feniks 9y ago
        "flexible and free payment services" Actually my government already has rules on that. Using my debetcard at a store, withdrawing money from an ATM or transferring money between bankaccounts is free. Its almost as if we live in 21st century already!
cryptoz 9y ago
The article says, > Like any technology, we need to consider the ethics of its application carefully so we don’t build tools that are open to abuse, or worst case, terminators that can travel through time to kill people. So no, they took the opportunity to clear up any fears or concerns about the project and used it to make a really, really scary joke about robots specifically designed to identify individuals by using cameras and kill them with guns. Nobody at this project gave one real thought about ethics. Ethically, you can't make that joke about your software, it's nauseating.
- headsoup 9y ago
  Maybe they gave thought to their own ethics, but they likely didn't consider implications of being useful for someone without said ethics.
- popcorncowboy 9y ago
  Yes. This. The terrifying thing is that this type of application "demo" is being built by smart people who are already fully aware of the _theoretical_ concept of ethical violations being enabled by software. And yet refuse to connect the obvious dots to the dystopian, anti-human capabilities enabled by the tools they're building. "Oh yes well we didn't mean it for THAT". WAY more respect (fear) if they came out and just honestly explained all the revenue generating capabilities this could extract from users. Better business. Less disingenuous. I certainly feel MUCH safer knowing that my software could FORCE me to spend my attention on it for whatever reason. Bravo Machine-Box, really helping make the world a better place.
matte_black 9y ago
Yes, but not for the reasons you think. It's an ethics arbitrage. This kind of business looks for unethical technologies that other companies wouldn't dare to create, and then packages it up in a form that is palatable enough to bring to market at a profit.
ryandrake 9y ago
The site itself has a tiny section on ethics that might as well say "hey, use this ethically! wink, wink!"
hahajk 9y ago
"When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success." - Robert Oppenheimer
- username223 9y ago
  Good analogy. Oppenheimer was a young, brilliant, and ambitious scientist with the money and power to pursue a huge project. The famous Oppenheimer quote upon seeing the result of his work is "now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I don't think modern tech-bros have his level of insight or introspection, but fortunately the stakes are a bit lower.
smallnamespace 9y ago
> Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this? But consider the fact that you are using terms out of the humanities, while most of my fellow CS students endlessly griped about how useless their humanities courses were and how they wished the school would get rid of that course requirement (six courses total over 4 years). Until we teach the tech-priests of the 21st century the great responsibility due to the power that they hold, I doubt things will improve.
- Nursie 9y ago
  I'm not sure I agree the implicit assumption here that humanities courses necessarily result in more, well, humanity. In the UK, for instance, we have no requirements for a university degree other than the courses relevant to that degree. I was there to study computer science, not get a rounded education at someone else's insistence. And yet most of the really rapacious, conscienceless, anti-human stuff seems to me to come from the libertarian and 'bro' fringes of Silicon Valley, seemingly despite the requirements to study more 'humanities'.
  - binaryriviera 9y ago
    I agree. It seems to come from the silicon valley culture more than anything. After all Peter Thiel, one of the more extreme examples of this sort of thinking, got a philosophy bachelors degree iirc.
  - stordoff 9y ago
    > In the UK, for instance, we have no requirements for a university degree other than the courses relevant to that degree. Which depends almost entirely on the university in question. My computer science degree (Cambridge) had two separate courses focusing on ethics/humanities. Year 1 had Professional Practice and Ethics (which starts as broad as "Ethical theory. Basic questions in ethics. Survey of ethical theories: [...]. Advantages and disadvantages of the two main theories: utilitarian and deontological.", not just as it relates to CS), and Year 2 had Economics and Law (broad introduction to micro/macroeconomics, and a general overview of the law as it related to CS). The course introduction for the latter notes that you are to treat it as if reading a humanties subject: > One word of warning: many part 1b students may never have studied a humanties subject since GCSE. It is a different task from learning a programming language; it is not sufficient to acquire proficiency at a small core of manipulative techniques, and figure out the rest when needed. Breadth matters. You should spend at least half of the study time you allocate to this subject on general reading. There are many introductory texts on economics and on law; your college library is probably a good place to start. FWIW, I don't recall many complaints about the presence of these courses. Most seemed to find it useful to get a more rounded view, and it was a nice change of pace from tens of hours of pure computer science a week). It was also likely helpful for my later studies in Law. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/0809/EconLaw/ https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/0809/EconLaw/
tempodox 9y ago
> if they don't do it, I guess someone else will In my book, the ethical viewpoint would be, “someone else might eventually do that, but it sure as hell won't be me”.
Feniks 9y ago
Ethics go out the window when you have a mortgage to pay. The tech industry also lives in a bubble.
- nabeards 9y ago
  I both pay my mortgage and keep ethics in the house. I'm not sure this company or dev was so desperate to make money that this seemed like the last hope.

IntronExon 9y ago

This is why software needs an association with some teeth, because professional ethical standards don’t grow on trees. Note how a doctor doesn’t just say, “Well if I don’t dose these people without their knowledge or consent, someone else will.”

notgoingaway 9y ago
Fuck no

Rotdhizon 9y ago

There was an article about just that the other week, on here I believe. It was detailing how a lot of the controversial tech ideas coming out of places like silicon valley are from these tech/startup moguls who are so disconnected from reality that they don't understand the concept of ethics or technological consequence. To them it doesn't matter how intrusive a design is, if it solves a problem, then that justifies all negatives.

rhizome 9y ago
I'm willing to consider that they're all confused Futurama fans. They heard "technically correct...the best kind of correct!" and transmogrified it to "technically a good idea, the best kind of idea!"

gricardo99 9y ago

The great irony is that often technological innovations are believed to be liberating and done with the motivation of improving the common lot of humanity. Two examples: Social networking - Enabling more meaningful and greater connection between people, leading to greater happiness and fulfillment? Or, fostering more divisions, balkanization into "like" echo chambers, promulgating fear and prejudice, leading to greater depression and mass manipulation? Cryptocurrencies - Disintermediation! need I say more ;) All kinds of utopian views of how this is supposed to promote freedom, security and efficiency. But top of the wish-list for the most paranoid and repressive authoritarian tyrant would have to be a magical way to fully control and monitor all economic activity: A cash-less society where every single transaction is done with the government controlled digital currency, recorded on the government controlled blockchain.

bringtheaction 9y ago
But why would I want to use a government controlled blockchain? For me the concept of decentralization is essential to cryptocurrency.
- gricardo99 9y ago
  Decentralization is not essential to cryptocurrency as a technology. It's essential to a view of how it could be used for the betterment of many. The technology can just as easily be applied for other purposes, mandated by an authoritarian government to be the only legal way to conduct commerce. You'd use it not because you want to, but because you want to avoid their ire.
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    With a single trusted party, a blockchain is just a wildly inefficient database. There's literally no reason to use it at that point, just make a simple db of account numbers and balances.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      Actually there is. 21st century money. It would be actually possible to use a government's money in various new ways. Think of what could happen in the economy if the government provided flexible and free payment services. (Which is exactly why they'll never do it, but just pointing out that a government-controlled blockchain for normal people would have a LOT of applications)
      - daveFNbuck 9y ago
        Why do you need blockchain for that if it's centralized and controlled by the government?
      - Feniks 9y ago
        "flexible and free payment services" Actually my government already has rules on that. Using my debetcard at a store, withdrawing money from an ATM or transferring money between bankaccounts is free. Its almost as if we live in 21st century already!

cryptoz 9y ago

The article says, > Like any technology, we need to consider the ethics of its application carefully so we don’t build tools that are open to abuse, or worst case, terminators that can travel through time to kill people. So no, they took the opportunity to clear up any fears or concerns about the project and used it to make a really, really scary joke about robots specifically designed to identify individuals by using cameras and kill them with guns. Nobody at this project gave one real thought about ethics. Ethically, you can't make that joke about your software, it's nauseating.

headsoup 9y ago
Maybe they gave thought to their own ethics, but they likely didn't consider implications of being useful for someone without said ethics.
popcorncowboy 9y ago
Yes. This. The terrifying thing is that this type of application "demo" is being built by smart people who are already fully aware of the _theoretical_ concept of ethical violations being enabled by software. And yet refuse to connect the obvious dots to the dystopian, anti-human capabilities enabled by the tools they're building. "Oh yes well we didn't mean it for THAT". WAY more respect (fear) if they came out and just honestly explained all the revenue generating capabilities this could extract from users. Better business. Less disingenuous. I certainly feel MUCH safer knowing that my software could FORCE me to spend my attention on it for whatever reason. Bravo Machine-Box, really helping make the world a better place.

matte_black 9y ago

Yes, but not for the reasons you think. It's an ethics arbitrage. This kind of business looks for unethical technologies that other companies wouldn't dare to create, and then packages it up in a form that is palatable enough to bring to market at a profit.

ryandrake 9y ago

The site itself has a tiny section on ethics that might as well say "hey, use this ethically! wink, wink!"

hahajk 9y ago

"When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success." - Robert Oppenheimer

username223 9y ago
Good analogy. Oppenheimer was a young, brilliant, and ambitious scientist with the money and power to pursue a huge project. The famous Oppenheimer quote upon seeing the result of his work is "now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I don't think modern tech-bros have his level of insight or introspection, but fortunately the stakes are a bit lower.

smallnamespace 9y ago

> Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this? But consider the fact that you are using terms out of the humanities, while most of my fellow CS students endlessly griped about how useless their humanities courses were and how they wished the school would get rid of that course requirement (six courses total over 4 years). Until we teach the tech-priests of the 21st century the great responsibility due to the power that they hold, I doubt things will improve.

Nursie 9y ago
I'm not sure I agree the implicit assumption here that humanities courses necessarily result in more, well, humanity. In the UK, for instance, we have no requirements for a university degree other than the courses relevant to that degree. I was there to study computer science, not get a rounded education at someone else's insistence. And yet most of the really rapacious, conscienceless, anti-human stuff seems to me to come from the libertarian and 'bro' fringes of Silicon Valley, seemingly despite the requirements to study more 'humanities'.
- binaryriviera 9y ago
  I agree. It seems to come from the silicon valley culture more than anything. After all Peter Thiel, one of the more extreme examples of this sort of thinking, got a philosophy bachelors degree iirc.
- stordoff 9y ago
  > In the UK, for instance, we have no requirements for a university degree other than the courses relevant to that degree. Which depends almost entirely on the university in question. My computer science degree (Cambridge) had two separate courses focusing on ethics/humanities. Year 1 had Professional Practice and Ethics (which starts as broad as "Ethical theory. Basic questions in ethics. Survey of ethical theories: [...]. Advantages and disadvantages of the two main theories: utilitarian and deontological.", not just as it relates to CS), and Year 2 had Economics and Law (broad introduction to micro/macroeconomics, and a general overview of the law as it related to CS). The course introduction for the latter notes that you are to treat it as if reading a humanties subject: > One word of warning: many part 1b students may never have studied a humanties subject since GCSE. It is a different task from learning a programming language; it is not sufficient to acquire proficiency at a small core of manipulative techniques, and figure out the rest when needed. Breadth matters. You should spend at least half of the study time you allocate to this subject on general reading. There are many introductory texts on economics and on law; your college library is probably a good place to start. FWIW, I don't recall many complaints about the presence of these courses. Most seemed to find it useful to get a more rounded view, and it was a nice change of pace from tens of hours of pure computer science a week). It was also likely helpful for my later studies in Law. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/0809/EconLaw/ https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/0809/EconLaw/

tempodox 9y ago

> if they don't do it, I guess someone else will In my book, the ethical viewpoint would be, “someone else might eventually do that, but it sure as hell won't be me”.

Feniks 9y ago

Ethics go out the window when you have a mortgage to pay. The tech industry also lives in a bubble.

nabeards 9y ago
I both pay my mortgage and keep ethics in the house. I'm not sure this company or dev was so desperate to make money that this seemed like the last hope.