3 ms·

> Brent Hecht has a controversial proposal: the computer-science community should change its peer-review process to ensure that researchers disclose any possibl

> Brent Hecht has a controversial proposal: the computer-science community should change its peer-review process to ensure that researchers disclose any possible negative societal consequences of their work in papers, or risk rejection. Agreed. > The idea is not to try to predict the future, but, on the basis of the literature, to identify the expected side effects or unintended uses of this technology. Agreed. > No, we’re not saying they should reject a paper with extensive negative impacts — just that all negative impacts should be disclosed. Agreed. > But we’re moving towards a more iterative, dialogue-based process of review, and reviewers would need to cite rigorous reasons for their concerns, so I don’t think that should be much of a worry. If a few papers get rejected and resubmitted six months later and, as a result, our field has an arc of innovation towards positive impact, then I’m not too worried. Another critique was that it’s so hard to predict impacts that we shouldn’t even try. We all agree it’s hard and that we’re going to miss tonnes of them, but even if we catch just 1% or 5%, it’s worth it. Agreed. > We need to be saying, based on existing evidence, what is the confidence that a given innovation will have a side effect? And if it’s above a certain threshold, we need to talk about it. Agreed. > We believe that in most cases, no changes are necessary for any peer reviewers to adopt our recommendations — it is already in their existing mandate to ensure intellectual rigour in all parts of the paper. It’s just that this aspect of the mandate dramatically underused. Agreed. > Then, the gatekeepers are the press, and it’s up to them to ask what the negative impacts of the technology are. Agreed. > Disclosing negative impacts is not just an end in itself, but a public statement of new problems that need to be solved. We need to bend the incentives in computer science towards making the net impact of innovations positive. When we retire will we tell our grandchildren, like those in the oil and gas industry: “We were just developing products and doing what we were told”? Or can we be the generation that finally took the reins on computing innovation and guided it towards positive impact? Agreed. I haven't read this article (https://acm-fca.org/2018/03/29/negativeimpacts/ https://acm-fca.org/2018/03/29/negativeimpacts/) in entirety but I agree with the bolded points. Only viewed bolded points up to the examples. -- Edit: I want to say thank you for your respectful tone in spite of my slightly aggressive(?) one. I'm grateful to people like you because it reminds me, it matters a lot.

slededit 8y ago
> The idea is not to try to predict the future, but, on the basis of the literature, to identify the expected side effects or unintended uses of this technology. What will you do with this information? > No, we’re not saying they should reject a paper with extensive negative impacts — just that all negative impacts should be disclosed. So at best its useless, and at worst it serves to fuel the imaginations of those who would use it for evil. > our field has an arc of innovation towards positive impact How would this change the course of innovation? The only way I can see is if its used to censor. > We need to be saying, based on existing evidence, what is the confidence that a given innovation will have a side effect? And if it’s above a certain threshold, we need to talk about it. Why is a specialist in a specific technology qualified to determine negative societal outcomes of it? Human societies are extremely complex systems and even those specialized in it have poor predictive track records. > Then, the gatekeepers are the press, and it’s up to them to ask what the negative impacts of the technology are. Why would the press have this power? They've never had such substantial control before. Governments have been able to suppress independent nuclear research in the most extreme case but the laws surrounding that are not exactly proven. If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press?
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  First, this is hypothetical. > What will you do with this information? If I was in the position of a researcher, I would talk to people it affects directly or try to communicate my awareness to people who are in a similar interdisciplinary dilemma who can then communicate their awareness to people who are 'on the ground' such that the problems both researchers have awareness of can be identified and then resolved in real life. The point is progress, one direction that moves forwards, not backwards or cycles. Obviously this can be a state of mind one can choose to see or ignore - see the cycles only or notice the differences with positive improvement universally in mind. But I'm one person, stuff like this will always be is a group effort. > So at best its useless, and at worst it serves to fuel the imaginations of those who would use it for evil. Group effort, squish evil. Evil is not something I know how to identify though, that's always been the dilemma. The real evil seems to be the thing that actually completely extinguishes your existence entirely, death(?). > How would this change the course of innovation? The only way I can see is if its used to censor. I don't think the intent is to censor, I think the intent is to alleviate existing censoring of problems people are aware of but have no way of speaking about. > Why is a specialist in a specific technology qualified to determine negative societal outcomes of it? Human societies are extremely complex systems and even those specialized in it have poor predictive track records. Maybe they have some first hand experience that they feel they would be embarrassed, ashamed, or rejected from disclosing that information because the association of being personally identified with a given experience is just something not accepted, presently, professionally. Relegated to therapy, even though, there might be actual problems people have some awareness of. Fear of being implicated as being the cause rather than the solution. > Why would the press have this power? They've never had such substantial control before. Governments have been able to suppress independent nuclear research in the most extreme case but the laws surrounding that are not exactly proven. If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press? It's not power. It's trust. It's saying, researcher talking to reporter, 'hey if we make mistakes, point them out, because we won't always be able to see every error we make, especially when we must work in a system that requires minimal error to be seen as a function of our own approval mechanic.'. Errors in knowledge systems that function off of principles that are resonant of their own structure - that leads to destabilization of structure. There has to be some tolerance for making error, that's give and take, you see me make errors, I don't see myself making them, point them out. That's the trust given to the press. Speak up. > If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press? Bodies that self regulate must regulate one another. Checks and balances.

slededit 8y ago

> The idea is not to try to predict the future, but, on the basis of the literature, to identify the expected side effects or unintended uses of this technology. What will you do with this information? > No, we’re not saying they should reject a paper with extensive negative impacts — just that all negative impacts should be disclosed. So at best its useless, and at worst it serves to fuel the imaginations of those who would use it for evil. > our field has an arc of innovation towards positive impact How would this change the course of innovation? The only way I can see is if its used to censor. > We need to be saying, based on existing evidence, what is the confidence that a given innovation will have a side effect? And if it’s above a certain threshold, we need to talk about it. Why is a specialist in a specific technology qualified to determine negative societal outcomes of it? Human societies are extremely complex systems and even those specialized in it have poor predictive track records. > Then, the gatekeepers are the press, and it’s up to them to ask what the negative impacts of the technology are. Why would the press have this power? They've never had such substantial control before. Governments have been able to suppress independent nuclear research in the most extreme case but the laws surrounding that are not exactly proven. If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press?

s-shellfish 8y ago
First, this is hypothetical. > What will you do with this information? If I was in the position of a researcher, I would talk to people it affects directly or try to communicate my awareness to people who are in a similar interdisciplinary dilemma who can then communicate their awareness to people who are 'on the ground' such that the problems both researchers have awareness of can be identified and then resolved in real life. The point is progress, one direction that moves forwards, not backwards or cycles. Obviously this can be a state of mind one can choose to see or ignore - see the cycles only or notice the differences with positive improvement universally in mind. But I'm one person, stuff like this will always be is a group effort. > So at best its useless, and at worst it serves to fuel the imaginations of those who would use it for evil. Group effort, squish evil. Evil is not something I know how to identify though, that's always been the dilemma. The real evil seems to be the thing that actually completely extinguishes your existence entirely, death(?). > How would this change the course of innovation? The only way I can see is if its used to censor. I don't think the intent is to censor, I think the intent is to alleviate existing censoring of problems people are aware of but have no way of speaking about. > Why is a specialist in a specific technology qualified to determine negative societal outcomes of it? Human societies are extremely complex systems and even those specialized in it have poor predictive track records. Maybe they have some first hand experience that they feel they would be embarrassed, ashamed, or rejected from disclosing that information because the association of being personally identified with a given experience is just something not accepted, presently, professionally. Relegated to therapy, even though, there might be actual problems people have some awareness of. Fear of being implicated as being the cause rather than the solution. > Why would the press have this power? They've never had such substantial control before. Governments have been able to suppress independent nuclear research in the most extreme case but the laws surrounding that are not exactly proven. If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press? It's not power. It's trust. It's saying, researcher talking to reporter, 'hey if we make mistakes, point them out, because we won't always be able to see every error we make, especially when we must work in a system that requires minimal error to be seen as a function of our own approval mechanic.'. Errors in knowledge systems that function off of principles that are resonant of their own structure - that leads to destabilization of structure. There has to be some tolerance for making error, that's give and take, you see me make errors, I don't see myself making them, point them out. That's the trust given to the press. Speak up. > If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press? Bodies that self regulate must regulate one another. Checks and balances.