5 ms·

Incidents like this are starting to make me feel that software engineers should have a code of ethics, similar to the Hippocratic Oath. So technologies aren't a

Incidents like this are starting to make me feel that software engineers should have a code of ethics, similar to the Hippocratic Oath. So technologies aren't abused to marginalize individuals/groups.

mc32 8y ago
Not to put a damper on things, but it's not like the Hippocratic oath means anything as attested by[1]. It's only good if people heed it, otherwise it's meaningless. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_...
- rectangletangle 8y ago
  Although the Hippocratic oath has no teeth, or real enforcement. Hopefully popularizing a code of ethics, helps move the needle toward a better direction.
  - ihsw2 8y ago
    How do you reconcile a code of ethics with progressive supremacists that assert dominance is necessary for society to move forward?
lokopodium 8y ago
Nuclear weapons simulations, drone AI, smart bombs - all good. But don't you dare abuse a marginalized group!
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  > Nuclear weapons simulations, drone AI, smart bombs - all good. Why are you assuming people's positions on those topics? I've seen people bring them up.
  - lokopodium 8y ago
    Mostly because there are way more programmers working on weaponry of every possible kind than oppressing minorities, and you could say it causes way more harm and suffering. Also, unlike doctors, who are explicitly trusted with human health, programmers are not in any way different from anybody else and it's silly to try to impose a special moral code on them.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - jamesrcole 8y ago
      None of that has to do with your original comment ("Nuclear weapons simulations, drone AI, smart bombs - all good. But don't you dare abuse a marginalized group!") and what I objected to in it.
      - krageon 8y ago
        He's saying there are more important things in the world to worry about. In what way did you read it?
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        They said "Nuclear weapons simulations, drone AI, smart bombs - all good. But don't you dare abuse a marginalized group!" which is specially saying that people don't care about these matters for the first set of issues (which is an assumption about the person they were replying to, and an incorrect blanket statement about people in general) and also specifically implying that the only reason people cared in this case was because it involves a marginalised group (which is also an assumption that they didn't attempt to back up with evidence).
    - merpnderp 8y ago
      Fewer people die in wars today than at any point in the 20th century. As a trend, people dying from war related causes has been on a seriously downward trend. There's an argument to be made that modern weapons help keep the peace, exactly like MAD did between the USSR and USA.
- golergka 8y ago
  > Nuclear weapons simulations, drone AI, smart bombs - all good. Recent history continually shows that advances in military technology causes improvements in combatant/non-combatant casualty ratio. The smarter the bombs and missiles are, the less civilians they kill. Also, operators who only risk drones and not their own lives aren't nearly as trigger happy as pilots. And finally, a conflict between two countries is always more prolonged and bloody when the gap between their technological development and military prowess is smaller. Not to mention that MAD doctrine have prevented cold war from going hot. So yes, working on all these technologies helps you mention helps humanity and saves lives.
- heptathorp 8y ago
  We can oppose marginalizing people and oppose killing people at the same time. Your comment is a good example of whataboutism.
maxxxxx 8y ago
You have to be careful with this. Ethics can also be used to discriminate against people for religious reasons. These people think they are as ethical as you think you are.
- dlwdlw 8y ago
  All discrimination already is doing this, just indirectly. There's always an implication. The major one in the US is that harder working people are ethically better than lazy people. This combined with the belief that hard work equals success allows for very easy punishment based mindsets to spread.
  - TheAdamAndChe 8y ago
    I don't really understand this mindset. Are we supposed to treat people like there's absolutely no right or wrong way to live? How are we supposed to have a stable society when there are no standards by which to live by or strive for? Why shouldn't we discriminate against bad behavior and provide positive feedback for good behavior?
    - 794CD01 8y ago
      Sadly, yes. These days you cannot judge anyone by your own ethical standards, only by their own. There is no right and wrong, only consistency and hypocrisy.
    - edent 8y ago
      > Are we supposed to treat people like there's absolutely no right or wrong way to live? Yes. Modern society says that as long as your actions don't harm me, you should be able to do what you wish. There are some edge-cases, caveats, and exceptions - but that is the essence of modern liberalism. > How are we supposed to have a stable society when there are no standards by which to live You are assuming stability is a good thing. Progress is made through instability. You also assume that stability occurred back when society had standards. A quick look through history doesn't show any evidence of that. You also assume that stability doesn't harm people. It clearly does. When a society says no deviation is acceptable, the deviants are punished for the "crime" of existing. > Why shouldn't we discriminate against bad behavior and provide positive feedback for good behavior? Who decides what is good behaviour and what is bad? Allowing women to receive an education was considered bad behaviour in many societies. But society changes. Why should my behaviour be punished if it doesn't hurt anyone? Who I love is none of your concern.
yorwba 8y ago
A code of ethics: https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-profess... Just its existence is not enough to guarantee that anyone knows or cares about it.
gaius 8y ago
EdX has a course on this https://www.edx.org/course/ethics-law-analytics-ai-microsoft-dat249x https://www.edx.org/course/ethics-law-analytics-ai-microsoft...
kevin_b_er 8y ago
Code of ethics does not matter in an authoritarian state which will dictate what your ethics are to be.
pascalxus 8y ago
Your oath won't do you any good when you're fired. There's always plenty of talent ready to step up and do the job you would not do.

mc32 8y ago

Not to put a damper on things, but it's not like the Hippocratic oath means anything as attested by[1]. It's only good if people heed it, otherwise it's meaningless. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_...

rectangletangle 8y ago
Although the Hippocratic oath has no teeth, or real enforcement. Hopefully popularizing a code of ethics, helps move the needle toward a better direction.
- ihsw2 8y ago
  How do you reconcile a code of ethics with progressive supremacists that assert dominance is necessary for society to move forward?

lokopodium 8y ago

Nuclear weapons simulations, drone AI, smart bombs - all good. But don't you dare abuse a marginalized group!

jamesrcole 8y ago
> Nuclear weapons simulations, drone AI, smart bombs - all good. Why are you assuming people's positions on those topics? I've seen people bring them up.
- lokopodium 8y ago
  Mostly because there are way more programmers working on weaponry of every possible kind than oppressing minorities, and you could say it causes way more harm and suffering. Also, unlike doctors, who are explicitly trusted with human health, programmers are not in any way different from anybody else and it's silly to try to impose a special moral code on them.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    None of that has to do with your original comment ("Nuclear weapons simulations, drone AI, smart bombs - all good. But don't you dare abuse a marginalized group!") and what I objected to in it.
    - krageon 8y ago
      He's saying there are more important things in the world to worry about. In what way did you read it?
      - jamesrcole 8y ago
        They said "Nuclear weapons simulations, drone AI, smart bombs - all good. But don't you dare abuse a marginalized group!" which is specially saying that people don't care about these matters for the first set of issues (which is an assumption about the person they were replying to, and an incorrect blanket statement about people in general) and also specifically implying that the only reason people cared in this case was because it involves a marginalised group (which is also an assumption that they didn't attempt to back up with evidence).
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    Fewer people die in wars today than at any point in the 20th century. As a trend, people dying from war related causes has been on a seriously downward trend. There's an argument to be made that modern weapons help keep the peace, exactly like MAD did between the USSR and USA.
golergka 8y ago
> Nuclear weapons simulations, drone AI, smart bombs - all good. Recent history continually shows that advances in military technology causes improvements in combatant/non-combatant casualty ratio. The smarter the bombs and missiles are, the less civilians they kill. Also, operators who only risk drones and not their own lives aren't nearly as trigger happy as pilots. And finally, a conflict between two countries is always more prolonged and bloody when the gap between their technological development and military prowess is smaller. Not to mention that MAD doctrine have prevented cold war from going hot. So yes, working on all these technologies helps you mention helps humanity and saves lives.
heptathorp 8y ago
We can oppose marginalizing people and oppose killing people at the same time. Your comment is a good example of whataboutism.

maxxxxx 8y ago

You have to be careful with this. Ethics can also be used to discriminate against people for religious reasons. These people think they are as ethical as you think you are.

dlwdlw 8y ago
All discrimination already is doing this, just indirectly. There's always an implication. The major one in the US is that harder working people are ethically better than lazy people. This combined with the belief that hard work equals success allows for very easy punishment based mindsets to spread.
- TheAdamAndChe 8y ago
  I don't really understand this mindset. Are we supposed to treat people like there's absolutely no right or wrong way to live? How are we supposed to have a stable society when there are no standards by which to live by or strive for? Why shouldn't we discriminate against bad behavior and provide positive feedback for good behavior?
  - 794CD01 8y ago
    Sadly, yes. These days you cannot judge anyone by your own ethical standards, only by their own. There is no right and wrong, only consistency and hypocrisy.
  - edent 8y ago
    > Are we supposed to treat people like there's absolutely no right or wrong way to live? Yes. Modern society says that as long as your actions don't harm me, you should be able to do what you wish. There are some edge-cases, caveats, and exceptions - but that is the essence of modern liberalism. > How are we supposed to have a stable society when there are no standards by which to live You are assuming stability is a good thing. Progress is made through instability. You also assume that stability occurred back when society had standards. A quick look through history doesn't show any evidence of that. You also assume that stability doesn't harm people. It clearly does. When a society says no deviation is acceptable, the deviants are punished for the "crime" of existing. > Why shouldn't we discriminate against bad behavior and provide positive feedback for good behavior? Who decides what is good behaviour and what is bad? Allowing women to receive an education was considered bad behaviour in many societies. But society changes. Why should my behaviour be punished if it doesn't hurt anyone? Who I love is none of your concern.

yorwba 8y ago

A code of ethics: https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-profess... Just its existence is not enough to guarantee that anyone knows or cares about it.

gaius 8y ago

EdX has a course on this https://www.edx.org/course/ethics-law-analytics-ai-microsoft-dat249x https://www.edx.org/course/ethics-law-analytics-ai-microsoft...

kevin_b_er 8y ago

Code of ethics does not matter in an authoritarian state which will dictate what your ethics are to be.

pascalxus 8y ago

Your oath won't do you any good when you're fired. There's always plenty of talent ready to step up and do the job you would not do.