7 ms·
Computer Science absolutely has ethics. In the process of constructing systems which humans interact with, we simultaneously cause cultural and societal reperc
by dogcomplex 7y ago
Computer Science absolutely has ethics. In the process of constructing systems which humans interact with, we simultaneously cause cultural and societal repercussions. Even if the choices we made could be perfectly justified by "maximum efficiency", or "just the optimal way to structure things" (which is rarely the case - as this book likely argues, there's always a human design factor), then Computer Science must still work to understand the societal ramifications of those structures. To give a tiny sampling: Online shopping, social networks, VR, drones, office drones, automation, AI, the internet - all were arguably inevitable results of the new abilities computer science unlocked. All with deep ethical concerns.
If anything, the people who design the structures of life have the most ethical responsibility of anyone. We're the ones who make it possible, and who have the strongest understanding of what it is we're creating. Personally understanding the full ramifications might not be easy, with so much else to know, but certainly our field as a whole should be working to understand them. To say we have no ethical responsibility because we're scientists and mathematicians dealing with the technical problems is to say Frankenstein had no ethical responsibility when creating his Monster.
- crimsonalucard 7y agoNaw. It doesn't. Programming, UI, UX has ethics. But computer science doesn't have ethics just like mathematics doesn't have ethics. Pure computer science and pure mathematics have axiomatic foundations that are formally scoped and defined. The application of mathematics and computer science via engineering has ethics, but computer science itself is devoid of ethics just like algebra is devoid of ethics.
- sabas123 7y agoThe work that gets done in a strictly theoretical area ripples out onto practical areas and thus society. Cryptography is a rather "pure" form of math, yet it has major implications on society.
- crimsonalucard 7y agoYeah so does mathematics itself. Right? Mathematics is applied everywhere and is even used to calculate the trajectory of nuclear bombs yet it's utterly clear to most people that ethics and mathematics have nothing to do with each other. The thing with computer science is that people are just confused because they use it as a more lego like artistic endeavor rather than a mathematical field. The reality is... Computer science is really just mathematics with axioms rooted in two isomorphic primitives: Lambda calculus and turing machines.
- abdullahkhalids 7y agoIt is absolutely not clear to me that ethics and mathematics have nothing to do with each other. Let me give just one example. In statistics, there is a great debate about Bayesian methods vs frequentist methods. People in other fields using Frequentist vs Bayesian has real world consequences. For instance, medical scientists using frequentist statisics abuse the methods to publish cures that will not cure or help any sick people. This is not to say that the same scientists using Bayesian statistics would not attempt to abuse the system, but my belief (which could be wrong), is that the abuse will be less with Bayesian statistics. So for me the math professor, who teaches pre-medical students frequentist statistics or the mathematician who creates yet another adhoc frequentist test for some specific situation, is doing something bad according to my ethics. They are making the world a worse place because of the particular kind of mathematics they choose to do.
- crimsonalucard 7y agoI'm talking about the categorization of ethics with mathematics. You can tell some story putting them both together it doesn't make the category make any sense. I think the bayesian way is more beautiful. Does that mean now I have to insert beauty into the description? No.
- dogcomplex 7y agoIf you want to make an arbitrary categorization of what is mathematics (or computer science) to divorce it of perspectives of ethics, beauty, etc, then go for it. But those perspectives are there (and valid), and good luck coming up with a robust definition that successfully divides them without dramatically limiting your ability to say things about math/csc. (e.g. you may not be able to favor any representation of one formula/program over another without creating a definition of beauty, which leads you down the rabbit hole again). Point being: categorization is fuzzy. Ethics, beauty, etc are fuzzy but foundational and applicable to pretty much everything - like any other perspective. Denying them a place in CSC/Math/etc because they're seen as too "hard science" is a dead end road, because meeting your own bar of using only logical truth while still expressing anything useful about a subject is (probably) impossible - which is the general consensus in modern philosophy (as I understand it).