3 ms·

Yes, only people who know how the tech works should be discussing it. It’s far easier to train a skilled person in ethics than to take an ethics person and trai

Yes, only people who know how the tech works should be discussing it. It’s far easier to train a skilled person in ethics than to take an ethics person and train them in that domain. I don’t buy your argument that all experts are necessarily proponents. Even within a domain there are disagreements. The government issue is real and also slightly tangential. We need to make working in the public sector more attractive. And yes it should apply to journalism, but discerning that falls onto individual people. It’s a bit of a different issue.

tertius 8y ago
> Yes, only people who know how the tech works should be discussing it. Well then we disagree. Being an engineer or a technician does not make you a good ethicist. And that's what we need. Training an ethicist that is impartial or thoughtful from the beginning about the technology may also be easier than the opposite. They may be similar... But training an engineer in ethics I think is a good step. Some fields, like medicine, have it somewhat built in. We can debate how effective or serious that actually is. Being a technician or engineer does predispose you to thinking what you are working on or working with is ethical. I did list Tristan Harris as a good counter-example and someone that certainly can speak to the ethics of the issue. But his example is also a good example of engineers/technicians not being good candidates for being impartial because he has to be a type of activist. > I don’t buy your argument that all experts are necessarily proponents. Even within a domain there are disagreements. I said likely, not exclusively.