4 ms·

Ethical bot-making

43 points by homarp 8y ago

el_cujo 8y ago
I was expecting a little more out of an article with a title like that, this piece is a lot of fluff that can be summarized as "be nice".
- kpwagner 8y ago
  Yes, and "don't hurt people". Worse, I don't even think those are sufficient as guiding principles. In the real world many ethical situations are not best solved by being nice or refusing to hurt someone. How about not hurting people unnecessarily? One might say, "well, bots are not necessary, so they shouldn't ever hurt someone." If they aren't necessary, then why make them to begin with? Besides, there is no end to what someone else may determine to be hurtful. I won't play the game of trying to avoid all that is hurtful to everyone else. The article mentions a bot using racial slurs as something to avoid. Depending on the execution, this could be distasteful at best--assuming the intention of the creator was to have the bot use these slurs. But the use of slurs by bots has largely been unintended by my reckoning. So, you are telling me someone is genuinely hurt by a malfunctioning bot using a racial slur? That says a lot more about the user than it does the creator.
- lazerwalker 8y ago
  There may not be much in the article itself, but the "Further Reading" list is a great summary of good work that's been done to date by others.
UnpossibleJim 8y ago
Is there a dictum in journalism to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"? That seems to be antithetical to what journalism's original mission of reporting facts and letting the public decide (yes, I know this bares little resemblance to most modern journalistic styles). That style of reporting seems motivated towards a specific narrative, which is less than impartial. I might be wrong on what journalism's mission is and would like to hear opinions.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  I'd say the "original mission" depends on what you pick as the start of journalism, with the first written collections of news published by the state as a way of spreading its views on current affairs.
- icebraining 8y ago
  There are more facts in a day than would fit in a million newspapers. You have to make choices. Which news will you report? Who will you interview, and which sources will you consult? Which ones do you even have access to? Which ones will you still have once you publish this week's story? Impartiality in journalism is a myth invented by those propping up the status quo. The most you can be is honest.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    Impartiality is a scale, not an absolute. You can be more or less impartial even if you can't be perfect at it. Saying its not possible to be (more) impartial is propping up the divisive partisan journalism we have today.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Do you consider The Economist to be part of the divisive partisan journalism we have today? Because they are explicitly partial in their approach to journalism, promoting specific values and viewpoints: https://www.economist.com/help/about-us https://www.economist.com/help/about-us Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism.
      - beaconstudios 8y ago
        I couldn't say, I'm not familiar enough with their work to have an opinion. When I read the news, I want to know what happened in the world - I don't want to read it through the lens of the journalist. If there was a skirmish between Israel and Hamas, tell me that. Explain the events as we understand them, without spinning them to fit into a political narrative. What I dislike is when the Guardian reports it as Israel oppressing innocent Palestinians and Fox News reports it as a terrorist attack on unsuspecting checkpoint guards. People in the left-leaning tech industry tend to interpret this as "Fox News always lies" but from what I've seen it's more like both sides lie and the truth is somewhere in the middle. The real world is murky and complicated and political issues are very rarely black-and-white (if they were, there wouldn't be 2 sides). When journalists simplify a story to pander to bias, it promotes black-and-white thinking and I believe that's extremely harmful to meaningful political engagement. [edit] > Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism. OK sure, I'll grant you that. The latter is what I take issue with. Reporting from a perspective is to be expected, a social commentary journal would focus on different facts from an economics or a culture journal and you'll have other differences. My issue is basically how political reporters spin stories.
blueadept111 8y ago
"Harming people is bad, and we shouldn't do it. I hope that's self-evident to anyone reading this" Whether you are a molecule, an animal, or a human, entropy dictates that to order to exist longer than your counterparts, you steal energy from them. If you're smart you team up with others for the common "good" (at the expense of whoever you steal energy from). So much for ethics.
- ChristianBundy 8y ago
  Are molecules people now? As long as we can agree on what "people" means then there really isn't any contradiction here. There's some contention whether animals are people (yes, in my opinion) but most of us can agree that stealing energy from lifeless matter is ethically fine.
  - blueadept111 8y ago
    Animals aren't people, people are animals.
- monadgonad 8y ago
  Even in your blinkered view of the world, don't you realise that choosing who to team up with and who to exploit is ethics?

43 points by homarp 8y ago

I was expecting a little more out of an article with a title like that, this piece is a lot of fluff that can be summarized as "be nice".

kpwagner 8y ago
Yes, and "don't hurt people". Worse, I don't even think those are sufficient as guiding principles. In the real world many ethical situations are not best solved by being nice or refusing to hurt someone. How about not hurting people unnecessarily? One might say, "well, bots are not necessary, so they shouldn't ever hurt someone." If they aren't necessary, then why make them to begin with? Besides, there is no end to what someone else may determine to be hurtful. I won't play the game of trying to avoid all that is hurtful to everyone else. The article mentions a bot using racial slurs as something to avoid. Depending on the execution, this could be distasteful at best--assuming the intention of the creator was to have the bot use these slurs. But the use of slurs by bots has largely been unintended by my reckoning. So, you are telling me someone is genuinely hurt by a malfunctioning bot using a racial slur? That says a lot more about the user than it does the creator.
lazerwalker 8y ago
There may not be much in the article itself, but the "Further Reading" list is a great summary of good work that's been done to date by others.

UnpossibleJim 8y ago

Is there a dictum in journalism to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"? That seems to be antithetical to what journalism's original mission of reporting facts and letting the public decide (yes, I know this bares little resemblance to most modern journalistic styles). That style of reporting seems motivated towards a specific narrative, which is less than impartial. I might be wrong on what journalism's mission is and would like to hear opinions.

SiempreViernes 8y ago
I'd say the "original mission" depends on what you pick as the start of journalism, with the first written collections of news published by the state as a way of spreading its views on current affairs.
icebraining 8y ago
There are more facts in a day than would fit in a million newspapers. You have to make choices. Which news will you report? Who will you interview, and which sources will you consult? Which ones do you even have access to? Which ones will you still have once you publish this week's story? Impartiality in journalism is a myth invented by those propping up the status quo. The most you can be is honest.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  Impartiality is a scale, not an absolute. You can be more or less impartial even if you can't be perfect at it. Saying its not possible to be (more) impartial is propping up the divisive partisan journalism we have today.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Do you consider The Economist to be part of the divisive partisan journalism we have today? Because they are explicitly partial in their approach to journalism, promoting specific values and viewpoints: https://www.economist.com/help/about-us https://www.economist.com/help/about-us Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      I couldn't say, I'm not familiar enough with their work to have an opinion. When I read the news, I want to know what happened in the world - I don't want to read it through the lens of the journalist. If there was a skirmish between Israel and Hamas, tell me that. Explain the events as we understand them, without spinning them to fit into a political narrative. What I dislike is when the Guardian reports it as Israel oppressing innocent Palestinians and Fox News reports it as a terrorist attack on unsuspecting checkpoint guards. People in the left-leaning tech industry tend to interpret this as "Fox News always lies" but from what I've seen it's more like both sides lie and the truth is somewhere in the middle. The real world is murky and complicated and political issues are very rarely black-and-white (if they were, there wouldn't be 2 sides). When journalists simplify a story to pander to bias, it promotes black-and-white thinking and I believe that's extremely harmful to meaningful political engagement. [edit] > Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism. OK sure, I'll grant you that. The latter is what I take issue with. Reporting from a perspective is to be expected, a social commentary journal would focus on different facts from an economics or a culture journal and you'll have other differences. My issue is basically how political reporters spin stories.

blueadept111 8y ago

"Harming people is bad, and we shouldn't do it. I hope that's self-evident to anyone reading this" Whether you are a molecule, an animal, or a human, entropy dictates that to order to exist longer than your counterparts, you steal energy from them. If you're smart you team up with others for the common "good" (at the expense of whoever you steal energy from). So much for ethics.

ChristianBundy 8y ago
Are molecules people now? As long as we can agree on what "people" means then there really isn't any contradiction here. There's some contention whether animals are people (yes, in my opinion) but most of us can agree that stealing energy from lifeless matter is ethically fine.
- blueadept111 8y ago
  Animals aren't people, people are animals.
monadgonad 8y ago
Even in your blinkered view of the world, don't you realise that choosing who to team up with and who to exploit is ethics?