3 ms·

The governing body would not just be there to arbitrate, advocate, or negotiate. They would also be there for promoting training and sharing of knowledge.

mr_spothawk 9y ago
i want to stress that i'm not challenging the person, just the text. > The governing body would not just be there to arbitrate, advocate, or negotiate. They would also be there for promoting training and sharing of knowledge. this reads like duct-tape solutions. it's always the case that a governing body grows and grows and gets in the way. "it's not just there to XYZ, it also BLAHBLAHBLAH". a governing body is one possible solution to the problem of people not understanding ethics (or how to figure out what ethics are), that I don't think will solve the larger problem. a governing body will need to be run by practitioners of governance, and enforced by practitioners of enforcement. ethics needs to be practiced everywhere, all the time. and a governing body won't make that happen. people need to be learning about why their activities are "good" or "bad" or "questionable". in my (simplified version) view: we're not lacking incentive to work (money!), we're lacking incentive to not work (people shouting at us for being assholes for doing asshole work [e.g. bombs, baby killing, evil algos]). we need to cultivate behaviors of ethical culture... instead we're cultivating behaviors that promote short-term-ism (buy your way to happiness, bomb your way to safety, build your dream home on loan!, opportunity cost services saving us from having to cleaning up after ourselves, trash removal services that vanish things away to faraway dumps we never think of)
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  I honestly don't see what's "duct-tape" about suggesting that, being our organization, we'd get to decide how it's shaped.
schaunwheeler 9y ago
I don't think training and sharing of knowledge is the problem. The problem is creating an appropriate incentive structure for maintaining trust in individual practitioners' competency. That doesn't happen in a top-down way. It has to be negotiated as locally as possible.

mr_spothawk 9y ago

i want to stress that i'm not challenging the person, just the text. > The governing body would not just be there to arbitrate, advocate, or negotiate. They would also be there for promoting training and sharing of knowledge. this reads like duct-tape solutions. it's always the case that a governing body grows and grows and gets in the way. "it's not just there to XYZ, it also BLAHBLAHBLAH". a governing body is one possible solution to the problem of people not understanding ethics (or how to figure out what ethics are), that I don't think will solve the larger problem. a governing body will need to be run by practitioners of governance, and enforced by practitioners of enforcement. ethics needs to be practiced everywhere, all the time. and a governing body won't make that happen. people need to be learning about why their activities are "good" or "bad" or "questionable". in my (simplified version) view: we're not lacking incentive to work (money!), we're lacking incentive to not work (people shouting at us for being assholes for doing asshole work [e.g. bombs, baby killing, evil algos]). we need to cultivate behaviors of ethical culture... instead we're cultivating behaviors that promote short-term-ism (buy your way to happiness, bomb your way to safety, build your dream home on loan!, opportunity cost services saving us from having to cleaning up after ourselves, trash removal services that vanish things away to faraway dumps we never think of)

s73v3r_ 9y ago
I honestly don't see what's "duct-tape" about suggesting that, being our organization, we'd get to decide how it's shaped.

schaunwheeler 9y ago

I don't think training and sharing of knowledge is the problem. The problem is creating an appropriate incentive structure for maintaining trust in individual practitioners' competency. That doesn't happen in a top-down way. It has to be negotiated as locally as possible.