3 ms·

Do you need to be a nuclear physicist to have opinions on ethics of nuclear weapons?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
goatlover 8y ago
Nope, and it seems like nuclear physicists back in the day could have used some stronger opinions on the ethics of making nuclear weapons.
- physicsyogi 8y ago
  During WWII, Germany was also trying to build the bomb. All things considered, it's probably better that the Manhattan Project beat them to it.
  - goatlover 8y ago
    Sure, but it didn't stop there.
telltruth 8y ago
You can have opinion on anything without knowing anything. This is what forums like this is about :). But if you want to give an informed opinion, you do need to understand the tech. For example, how do you decide what restrictions to put in export of nuclear power tech if you have no clue how it can be re-purposed to make a bomb?
- matt4077 8y ago
  International efforts against proliferation have been somewhat successful, even though they ultimately rely on politicians, not nuclear physicists. And in any case, a lack of knowledge regarding dual-use technology has never been the problem.
- birksherty 8y ago
  How do we let only tech people decide ethics if they don't care about ethics like we have seen in Facebook?
intertextuality 8y ago
Anyone can have an opinion. When a person's title at a company is "Nuclear Weapon Ethics" and they go around giving talks, I would 100% expect them to have some sort of practical experience and knowledge in that domain. Just because you know a thing or two about ethics doesn't mean you are equipped to discuss a particular domain. How can you possibly begin to discuss AI Ethics if you have no idea how it works or what's -realistically- possible?
- birksherty 8y ago
  People can definitely say what should be allowed and what is not without achiving that result currently.
- SerLava 8y ago
  To what degree? There's a difference between knowledge of what's practical, and experience in implementation. I'm getting the sense that the goalposts are ready to slide here, but I wouldn't expect an expert on "when to not do a new Holocaust" to be able to model interactions between uranium atoms. Not having any familiarity with the subject is obviously its own disqualification as an expert in a given area of ethics. And a nuclear physicist could lack understanding of ethics, international politics, history, military, who's even armed... This would be far more disqualifying.
  - intertextuality 8y ago
    A more realistic area where experts would be needed might be “should we be using nuclear energy sources”? In this case I don’t care how trained an ethics person is in ethics or history. They literally are not equipped to discuss this topic without being fed information from somewhere, which leads to its own issues. I would much rather take domain experts and train them in philosophy, ethics, and history to an extent. That is far easier and better than the other way around.
- tzs 8y ago
  > How can you possibly begin to discuss AI Ethics if you have no idea how it works or what's -realistically- possible? What matters for ethics is the effects things have on people. You generally don't have to know how something works in order to understand what effects it has--someone who does understand how it works can figure that out and tell you. For example, if you had to decide between on the ethics of using a nuclear weapon and using conventional weapons to destroy some legitimate military target you wouldn't need to know anything about the physics of nuclear weapons. All you'd need to know about the nuke is how powerful it is, the long term illnesses it can cause, how it can affect people far away from the blast, how it can make the area unsafe for humans for a long time, and so on. To decide the ethical issues you are concerned with what happens, not how it happens. If we ever get to general AI, and are dealing with ethical questions like whether it is murder to restore a robot to factory settings, whether it is slavery to own a robot, or whether a robot can own property then we will probably need ethicists who are also AI experts.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Nope, and it seems like nuclear physicists back in the day could have used some stronger opinions on the ethics of making nuclear weapons.

physicsyogi 8y ago
During WWII, Germany was also trying to build the bomb. All things considered, it's probably better that the Manhattan Project beat them to it.
- goatlover 8y ago
  Sure, but it didn't stop there.

telltruth 8y ago

You can have opinion on anything without knowing anything. This is what forums like this is about :). But if you want to give an informed opinion, you do need to understand the tech. For example, how do you decide what restrictions to put in export of nuclear power tech if you have no clue how it can be re-purposed to make a bomb?

matt4077 8y ago
International efforts against proliferation have been somewhat successful, even though they ultimately rely on politicians, not nuclear physicists. And in any case, a lack of knowledge regarding dual-use technology has never been the problem.
birksherty 8y ago
How do we let only tech people decide ethics if they don't care about ethics like we have seen in Facebook?

intertextuality 8y ago

Anyone can have an opinion. When a person's title at a company is "Nuclear Weapon Ethics" and they go around giving talks, I would 100% expect them to have some sort of practical experience and knowledge in that domain. Just because you know a thing or two about ethics doesn't mean you are equipped to discuss a particular domain. How can you possibly begin to discuss AI Ethics if you have no idea how it works or what's -realistically- possible?

birksherty 8y ago
People can definitely say what should be allowed and what is not without achiving that result currently.
SerLava 8y ago
To what degree? There's a difference between knowledge of what's practical, and experience in implementation. I'm getting the sense that the goalposts are ready to slide here, but I wouldn't expect an expert on "when to not do a new Holocaust" to be able to model interactions between uranium atoms. Not having any familiarity with the subject is obviously its own disqualification as an expert in a given area of ethics. And a nuclear physicist could lack understanding of ethics, international politics, history, military, who's even armed... This would be far more disqualifying.
- intertextuality 8y ago
  A more realistic area where experts would be needed might be “should we be using nuclear energy sources”? In this case I don’t care how trained an ethics person is in ethics or history. They literally are not equipped to discuss this topic without being fed information from somewhere, which leads to its own issues. I would much rather take domain experts and train them in philosophy, ethics, and history to an extent. That is far easier and better than the other way around.
tzs 8y ago
> How can you possibly begin to discuss AI Ethics if you have no idea how it works or what's -realistically- possible? What matters for ethics is the effects things have on people. You generally don't have to know how something works in order to understand what effects it has--someone who does understand how it works can figure that out and tell you. For example, if you had to decide between on the ethics of using a nuclear weapon and using conventional weapons to destroy some legitimate military target you wouldn't need to know anything about the physics of nuclear weapons. All you'd need to know about the nuke is how powerful it is, the long term illnesses it can cause, how it can affect people far away from the blast, how it can make the area unsafe for humans for a long time, and so on. To decide the ethical issues you are concerned with what happens, not how it happens. If we ever get to general AI, and are dealing with ethical questions like whether it is murder to restore a robot to factory settings, whether it is slavery to own a robot, or whether a robot can own property then we will probably need ethicists who are also AI experts.