3 ms·

Facebook per se? No. But I'm a math grad. Yet I ALSO have this ability to read English (and Spanish and some Portuguese, but I'm not here to brag.) Wow. Look at

Facebook per se? No. But I'm a math grad. Yet I ALSO have this ability to read English (and Spanish and some Portuguese, but I'm not here to brag.) Wow. Look at that, I've mastered a couple different sets of syntax that enable semantic understanding. And there are books written in English that talk to the social history of the species. History, physics, etc, being subsets of English syntax (or other "human languages") tailored to describe specific semantics. A casual look at what happened over the years as various social bubbles suddenly slammed into each other; Columbus and Americas, repeated conquering of Europe and further east. Doesn't seem a stretch to think "information network could be used for malicious shit." And it has been for years, depending on who talk to (content piracy, trafficking, AI guided weapons, etc) before Facebook. So there's a plain history in contemporary times too. No need to dig that far back into history. And it's not advocating for binning the abstract research, or avoiding making these things concretely. It advocates for fostering a conversation about the potential pitfalls. Like programmers do before considering a change. Deep knowledge of the specifics isn't necessary, IMO. We code heads are already aware of "change in system may have bad side effects. Let's avoid it as much as possible." Emotional consideration is already there. This thread is devolving into childish attitudes about having to be part of society. Division of labor taken to its extreme, leads people to just disregard they are a part of a bigger picture (society). What did Adam Smith have to say about such things? All the way back in the 1700s. And he had no where near modern formal training. Seems rather spot on here.

Kalium 8y ago
You're absolutely right. There's a long, ugly, and documented history of what can happen when isolated societies slam into each other. The answer is almost always violence, exploitation, and oppression. Is it possible that this might not have been the planned result of TCP/IP, however? At the time there was just one social bubble and the point was to enable two computers already in it to connect in a more standardized manner. The notion of using the system for malice largely didn't occur, because at that point there was no reasonable way to gain from doing so. People weren't trying to engineer globe-spanning society-merging information networks. But never mind that. Reasonable people can disagree on questions like the accuracy of our ability to correctly predict the future from 45 years away and counteract those potential distant negative consequences. Moving on to what I consider the more interesting point: the process proposed. It's pretty clear that this isn't about fostering a conversation. You do not need enforcement mechanisms to foster a conversation. Enforcement abilities - like rejecting papers, which always comes with the risk of killing a paper forever - are about coercion. Maybe there's another way, like including ethical statements outside review processes, with papers that could both foster conversation and not rely on coercion? You're right again! Fostering conversation is immensely valuable. We are all part of a vulnerable and critically important society. It is our moral obligation to think about that as we look at our work and discuss it with our peers while also being humble and aware of our own limitations. We can, should, and must do this absolutely critical work. The future depends upon it. We are called to the work.

Kalium 8y ago

You're absolutely right. There's a long, ugly, and documented history of what can happen when isolated societies slam into each other. The answer is almost always violence, exploitation, and oppression. Is it possible that this might not have been the planned result of TCP/IP, however? At the time there was just one social bubble and the point was to enable two computers already in it to connect in a more standardized manner. The notion of using the system for malice largely didn't occur, because at that point there was no reasonable way to gain from doing so. People weren't trying to engineer globe-spanning society-merging information networks. But never mind that. Reasonable people can disagree on questions like the accuracy of our ability to correctly predict the future from 45 years away and counteract those potential distant negative consequences. Moving on to what I consider the more interesting point: the process proposed. It's pretty clear that this isn't about fostering a conversation. You do not need enforcement mechanisms to foster a conversation. Enforcement abilities - like rejecting papers, which always comes with the risk of killing a paper forever - are about coercion. Maybe there's another way, like including ethical statements outside review processes, with papers that could both foster conversation and not rely on coercion? You're right again! Fostering conversation is immensely valuable. We are all part of a vulnerable and critically important society. It is our moral obligation to think about that as we look at our work and discuss it with our peers while also being humble and aware of our own limitations. We can, should, and must do this absolutely critical work. The future depends upon it. We are called to the work.