37 ms·

Why? Engineers have functioning brains. They can decide on their own what is ethical or not. And act accordingly.

jasonhansel 7y ago
Yes, but they may decide incorrectly. Plenty of inethical people have "functioning brains"; they just lack the necessary knowledge.
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  Well incorrectly according to whom? People are well aware when something is wrong. They just love the money. A training course won't solve that problem. Brainwashing one will though.
  - pbourke 7y ago
    So, do you think calculus, physics, type theory, etc are all things that should be taught and studied, yet ethics is not? Do you think that unlike the former subjects, the latter is just something that everyone knows?
    - jlawson 7y ago
      The fundamental difference is that calculus, physics, type theory etc are all studies of what is. The goal is simply to describe and predict the world. Ethics is the study of what one ought to do. It purports to lift some values over other and define morality, meanings, and legitimate goals. These two - positive versus normative - are fundamentally different types of discussion and knowledge. Just consider: A physics course in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia would likely teach the same thing as a physics course in Stanford. An ethics course absolutely would not. Consider why and what that means.
      - speedplane 7y ago
        > The fundamental difference is that calculus, physics, type theory etc are all studies of what is. ... Ethics is the study of what one ought to do. ... Just consider: A physics course in Nazi Germany ... would likely teach the same thing as a physics course in Stanford This is a superficial understanding. Once you start digging deeply, the difference between the hard and moral sciences is more tenuous, and less "fundamental". Sure, "calculus, physics" etc largely attempt to describe what "is", but these fields are motivated by the belief that nature "ought" to make sense. There would be no calculus or physics without a desire to make sense of the world, an "ought". And "ought" does not just motivate hard science, it's an integral part of it. When following the scientific method, the first thing you do is form a hypothesis. A hypothesis, but its very definition, is not necessarily true, i.e., it's an "ought" not an "is". Scientists therefore have to embrace and believe in "normative" knowledge to advance just like other endeavors. The types of hypothesis and endeavors hard scientists engage in are subject to the prevailing social norms. To reference your example, Nazi Germany did all sorts of ghastly experiments on twins and other prisoners, all in the name of science. Something that would not be done elsewhere. Even today, research on areas like stem cells and global warming are largely influenced by social norms and "ought". Accordingly, while I agree there is a fundamental difference between "is" and "ought", that difference does not so clearly differentiate hard and soft sciences.
      - afthonos 7y ago
        > Just consider: A physics course in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia would likely teach the same thing as a physics course in Stanford. An ethics course absolutely would not. Consider why and what that means. Deutsche Physik rejected relativity and quantum mechanics, aka “Jewish physics”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik Lyshenkoism killed millions through famine by espousing nonsense biology and ignoring genetics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism Philosophy, including ethics, is foundational to everything we do, and unfamiliarity with the rules of the normative allows the unscrupulous to corrupt the positive.
        jlawson 7y ago
  - wwweston 7y ago
    > Well incorrectly according to whom? You know, this sounds like a good topic for an ethics course.
    - ReptileMan 7y ago
      A good software written to spec is by definition ethical. It is unethical to write bad software, not evil one. But if you write bad software - nobody should hire you anyway.
      - speedplane 7y ago
        > A good software written to spec is by definition ethical. Even if the spec specifies unethical behavior? Sounds like passing the buck. Or what if the spec itself isn't well defined, and leaves many undefined states and holes that the developer has to fill in themselves? If a lawyer submitted a brilliant and conforming but racist or unethical argument to a court, the lawyer can still be found to be unethical. Just because you're following the rules, doesn't mean that you're doing the ethical thing.
        ReptileMan 7y ago
        Even if the spec specifies whatever unethical behavior means. That is problem for the guy using the software not the one making it. Get the job done, get the money, get out. If you want to waste precious time of your life wondering whether something is wrong - be my guest. But don't impose it on people with better things to do.
        q3k 7y ago
        Careful - this line of argumentation can also be used to allow yourself to do some very, very evil things in life.
  - Ragib_Zaman 7y ago
    Lots of clever people unintentionally trained deep networks that unfairly discriminated against people of various races or from certain zip codes. Sometimes you aren't aware of all the implications of the decisions you might make and a course that informs you of such pitfalls can be helpful. Professional ethics courses at the University level aren't there to convince you discrimination based on gender, race etc is wrong, but to make you aware of when that may be occurring.
    - ReptileMan 7y ago
      I don't know. From what I remember of the flame war the problem was that they fairly discriminated against various races and zip codes. So actually the algorithms had to be made less accurate to fit the legal expectations. But once again the problem was in the customers. They should have said optimize for a, while keeping discrimination in check, not just optimize for a

Yes, but they may decide incorrectly. Plenty of inethical people have "functioning brains"; they just lack the necessary knowledge.

ReptileMan 7y ago
Well incorrectly according to whom? People are well aware when something is wrong. They just love the money. A training course won't solve that problem. Brainwashing one will though.
- pbourke 7y ago
  So, do you think calculus, physics, type theory, etc are all things that should be taught and studied, yet ethics is not? Do you think that unlike the former subjects, the latter is just something that everyone knows?
  - jlawson 7y ago
    The fundamental difference is that calculus, physics, type theory etc are all studies of what is. The goal is simply to describe and predict the world. Ethics is the study of what one ought to do. It purports to lift some values over other and define morality, meanings, and legitimate goals. These two - positive versus normative - are fundamentally different types of discussion and knowledge. Just consider: A physics course in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia would likely teach the same thing as a physics course in Stanford. An ethics course absolutely would not. Consider why and what that means.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > The fundamental difference is that calculus, physics, type theory etc are all studies of what is. ... Ethics is the study of what one ought to do. ... Just consider: A physics course in Nazi Germany ... would likely teach the same thing as a physics course in Stanford This is a superficial understanding. Once you start digging deeply, the difference between the hard and moral sciences is more tenuous, and less "fundamental". Sure, "calculus, physics" etc largely attempt to describe what "is", but these fields are motivated by the belief that nature "ought" to make sense. There would be no calculus or physics without a desire to make sense of the world, an "ought". And "ought" does not just motivate hard science, it's an integral part of it. When following the scientific method, the first thing you do is form a hypothesis. A hypothesis, but its very definition, is not necessarily true, i.e., it's an "ought" not an "is". Scientists therefore have to embrace and believe in "normative" knowledge to advance just like other endeavors. The types of hypothesis and endeavors hard scientists engage in are subject to the prevailing social norms. To reference your example, Nazi Germany did all sorts of ghastly experiments on twins and other prisoners, all in the name of science. Something that would not be done elsewhere. Even today, research on areas like stem cells and global warming are largely influenced by social norms and "ought". Accordingly, while I agree there is a fundamental difference between "is" and "ought", that difference does not so clearly differentiate hard and soft sciences.
    - afthonos 7y ago
      > Just consider: A physics course in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia would likely teach the same thing as a physics course in Stanford. An ethics course absolutely would not. Consider why and what that means. Deutsche Physik rejected relativity and quantum mechanics, aka “Jewish physics”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik Lyshenkoism killed millions through famine by espousing nonsense biology and ignoring genetics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism Philosophy, including ethics, is foundational to everything we do, and unfamiliarity with the rules of the normative allows the unscrupulous to corrupt the positive.
      - jlawson 7y ago
- wwweston 7y ago
  > Well incorrectly according to whom? You know, this sounds like a good topic for an ethics course.
  - ReptileMan 7y ago
    A good software written to spec is by definition ethical. It is unethical to write bad software, not evil one. But if you write bad software - nobody should hire you anyway.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > A good software written to spec is by definition ethical. Even if the spec specifies unethical behavior? Sounds like passing the buck. Or what if the spec itself isn't well defined, and leaves many undefined states and holes that the developer has to fill in themselves? If a lawyer submitted a brilliant and conforming but racist or unethical argument to a court, the lawyer can still be found to be unethical. Just because you're following the rules, doesn't mean that you're doing the ethical thing.
      - ReptileMan 7y ago
        Even if the spec specifies whatever unethical behavior means. That is problem for the guy using the software not the one making it. Get the job done, get the money, get out. If you want to waste precious time of your life wondering whether something is wrong - be my guest. But don't impose it on people with better things to do.
        q3k 7y ago
        Careful - this line of argumentation can also be used to allow yourself to do some very, very evil things in life.
- Ragib_Zaman 7y ago
  Lots of clever people unintentionally trained deep networks that unfairly discriminated against people of various races or from certain zip codes. Sometimes you aren't aware of all the implications of the decisions you might make and a course that informs you of such pitfalls can be helpful. Professional ethics courses at the University level aren't there to convince you discrimination based on gender, race etc is wrong, but to make you aware of when that may be occurring.
  - ReptileMan 7y ago
    I don't know. From what I remember of the flame war the problem was that they fairly discriminated against various races and zip codes. So actually the algorithms had to be made less accurate to fit the legal expectations. But once again the problem was in the customers. They should have said optimize for a, while keeping discrimination in check, not just optimize for a