4 ms·

I decided a few years ago when I left the CTO role at a startup I founded over what I considered a massively unethical feature, that I would never build anythin

I decided a few years ago when I left the CTO role at a startup I founded over what I considered a massively unethical feature, that I would never build anything that violates my code of ethics. No one has to build racist face tracking bots, or auto killbots, or automated sentancing platforms, or things that are just useless cash grab garbage. Sure people can argue that they'll just get someone else to build it. Fine, go for it, but the power I do have is to not build it. I'm not a clerk, I'm a creative partner and a damned good one. Money doesn't buy my soul. Fun fact, that feature never got built in that platform that I left. In fact they pivoted completely out of the field I had built the platform for. Possibly because of the loss of the person that got them there. Today, they make money, but not off something that would have haunted me for the rest of my life. Also, I'm much better at qualifying my partners/employers now before things like that come up and am much happier with the things I'm working on now. Maybe that's political. This feature could have been seen as de-platforming my political opposition if you wanted to. It's not much different from the stories in the article. We have a choice as the creators of the tools, like it or not. Not building a weapon for mass surveillance is a power I have and I'm willing to use it and it works. The world would be a better place if more people drew that line in the sand.

true_religion 8y ago
> Sure people can argue that they'll just get someone else to build it. The true argument would be that those things aren't unethical (or are merely poorly stated, or misunderstood), and no one should feel bad for their actions in building them. I don't think people want face tracking software to be explicitly "racist", anymore than Apple wanted their first generation of digital cameras lenses to poorly take pictures of dark skinned people. > The world would be a better place if more people drew that line in the sand. Thing is... people keep changing where the line in the sand ought to be drawn and soon start believing that anyone whose line is in a place it was merely ten years previously is "unethical". Ethics isn't supposed to be a spectrum, or a hammer to beat others over the head with, its supposed to be a way in which we communicate our ideals to one another so we can build together, or at least live together. Now this may not be you, but I think too many people are becoming intractable about their views.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- stuntkite 8y ago
  Well, the problem with the racist face tracking AI is THAT it's unintentional and being used by people that are clamoring to use it because it sounds great but aren't concerned about the human fallout. As the person who's educated in the tools, I feel that it's my responsibility to speak up about what these tools can do from my knowledge and experience. I decided that it's my duty as the person who writes the code and creates the thing to inform the executives, sales, marketing, and other engineers that even though there's a Scrooge McDuck money sack there that I won't be a part of it and other people in the company may not be either. I have to define what is ok or not on my own. There isn't a single source that can tell me the dangers of what I create. As an individual, I have spent countless hours thinking about what I do for a living and the moral code I need to live by and no one who has cut me a check can modify my personal code of ethics. The people who want to use these tools don't always know or care what the problems are. It's a race to market. Move fast and break things. IPO and get a jet. To counter that you may be saying that my ethics aren't hammer to beat people with... I say their paycheck isn't a whip to get me to build them a bomb to destroy people's lives with. Nor a gag to keep me silent if the company is building the bomb without me. Whatever I'm doing is funding the process that lets them engage in that project. I have a responsibility to use my voice if I have a problem with my contribution to something I see as dangerous, unnecessary, ugly, or stupid. My work could potentially outlive me, I have to be aware of my role is bringing it to the world. Having a discussion about that balance is how we will find ways to use the power we have as a society to create these things in a way that doesn't destroy people (guinea pigs) who have no say in these technologies creation. Coming together with other employees who say "We won't work for a company that builds this weapon" is how we are going to put the breaks on long enough to make the right choices and not just build it because we can. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Testing these things live, in the name of corporate bottom line, can cause problems that can last decades. If a person is the principal engineer on something that could be looked upon in the future like how stupid leaded gas was, and they knew it, and they still shipped that product... They are a fucking asshole and history, if they can identify them, will see them as criminals. This isn't about being a whiney snowflake, this is speaking up with the power we have as people to put the breaks on the creation of capital to have a say about the future world we want to live in. We ARE a very divided society here in the US, for precisely this reason... because until now no one at Facebook and Twitter was speaking up about their business model. They towed the line. Local news papers died, people siloed, and now you are right; people are becoming intractable in their views. People protesting at these companies are not doing something akin trolling Breitbart on Twitter for likes, they are saying that they don't want to be involved in making digital leaded gas and the people writing their checks have to listen. If they don't speak up, who else can that Apple, Google, or Amazon will listen to? The user? The government? Neither of those groups have the knowledge to know what the details are. They may think they want them. Leaded gas also poisoned the families of the people that sold it, and the politicians that lobbied for it, and the people that wanted it for their cars. As engineers we have a responsibility to have a moral compass and understand the impact of the things we create. We have a responsibility to think very deeply about the things that we create because we are in the role to create them. We are directly in the role to poison the well of humanity. If you don't think that's part of your job (if you are an engineer), then I would plead with you to move into something else. What we do matters. Introspection into the effects of our action or inaction is vital.

true_religion 8y ago

> Sure people can argue that they'll just get someone else to build it. The true argument would be that those things aren't unethical (or are merely poorly stated, or misunderstood), and no one should feel bad for their actions in building them. I don't think people want face tracking software to be explicitly "racist", anymore than Apple wanted their first generation of digital cameras lenses to poorly take pictures of dark skinned people. > The world would be a better place if more people drew that line in the sand. Thing is... people keep changing where the line in the sand ought to be drawn and soon start believing that anyone whose line is in a place it was merely ten years previously is "unethical". Ethics isn't supposed to be a spectrum, or a hammer to beat others over the head with, its supposed to be a way in which we communicate our ideals to one another so we can build together, or at least live together. Now this may not be you, but I think too many people are becoming intractable about their views.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stuntkite 8y ago
Well, the problem with the racist face tracking AI is THAT it's unintentional and being used by people that are clamoring to use it because it sounds great but aren't concerned about the human fallout. As the person who's educated in the tools, I feel that it's my responsibility to speak up about what these tools can do from my knowledge and experience. I decided that it's my duty as the person who writes the code and creates the thing to inform the executives, sales, marketing, and other engineers that even though there's a Scrooge McDuck money sack there that I won't be a part of it and other people in the company may not be either. I have to define what is ok or not on my own. There isn't a single source that can tell me the dangers of what I create. As an individual, I have spent countless hours thinking about what I do for a living and the moral code I need to live by and no one who has cut me a check can modify my personal code of ethics. The people who want to use these tools don't always know or care what the problems are. It's a race to market. Move fast and break things. IPO and get a jet. To counter that you may be saying that my ethics aren't hammer to beat people with... I say their paycheck isn't a whip to get me to build them a bomb to destroy people's lives with. Nor a gag to keep me silent if the company is building the bomb without me. Whatever I'm doing is funding the process that lets them engage in that project. I have a responsibility to use my voice if I have a problem with my contribution to something I see as dangerous, unnecessary, ugly, or stupid. My work could potentially outlive me, I have to be aware of my role is bringing it to the world. Having a discussion about that balance is how we will find ways to use the power we have as a society to create these things in a way that doesn't destroy people (guinea pigs) who have no say in these technologies creation. Coming together with other employees who say "We won't work for a company that builds this weapon" is how we are going to put the breaks on long enough to make the right choices and not just build it because we can. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Testing these things live, in the name of corporate bottom line, can cause problems that can last decades. If a person is the principal engineer on something that could be looked upon in the future like how stupid leaded gas was, and they knew it, and they still shipped that product... They are a fucking asshole and history, if they can identify them, will see them as criminals. This isn't about being a whiney snowflake, this is speaking up with the power we have as people to put the breaks on the creation of capital to have a say about the future world we want to live in. We ARE a very divided society here in the US, for precisely this reason... because until now no one at Facebook and Twitter was speaking up about their business model. They towed the line. Local news papers died, people siloed, and now you are right; people are becoming intractable in their views. People protesting at these companies are not doing something akin trolling Breitbart on Twitter for likes, they are saying that they don't want to be involved in making digital leaded gas and the people writing their checks have to listen. If they don't speak up, who else can that Apple, Google, or Amazon will listen to? The user? The government? Neither of those groups have the knowledge to know what the details are. They may think they want them. Leaded gas also poisoned the families of the people that sold it, and the politicians that lobbied for it, and the people that wanted it for their cars. As engineers we have a responsibility to have a moral compass and understand the impact of the things we create. We have a responsibility to think very deeply about the things that we create because we are in the role to create them. We are directly in the role to poison the well of humanity. If you don't think that's part of your job (if you are an engineer), then I would plead with you to move into something else. What we do matters. Introspection into the effects of our action or inaction is vital.