5 ms·

Technical professions are generally held responsible for what they enable. Biology: researchers can't do anything they want on plants, animals or humans. Medici

Technical professions are generally held responsible for what they enable. Biology: researchers can't do anything they want on plants, animals or humans. Medicine: doctors are expected to follow strict guidelines with their patients. Even engineering: implementing a cheating system for diesel tests will (rightfully) get engineers into trouble. But software engineering seem to have a pass on how the things we build is actually used. Dark patterns, facial recognition, mass surveillance? Just some code, a nice puzzle. It's like the profession as a whole feels only distantly connected to what they actually do. I welcome the trend of developers taking more moral responsibility for their work. I want more ethics courses, more difficult questions, more uneasiness about what we do with our code, and what we enable. Not to be sure we build the right thing, but at least to be less wrong–and, sometimes, to know when we clearly build the wrong thing. I want us to be accountable; like other technical professions in the world. And if in the workplace, the place where the majority of software in the world is usually produced, we can't have these discussions, what use will it be?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> Technical professions are generally hold responsible for what they enable. Not really. Doctors are expected to do the best for their patient without worrying about societal consequences. If Hitler came to a doctor in need of medical help, the doctor would be ethically required to do their best for him, desolate the negative consequences of Hitler to society. Same with lawyers. Even if their client is a serial murderer and has co fessed their guilt to them, they still have to do their best in representing them.
- couchand 7y ago
  > Even if their client is a serial murderer and has co fessed their guilt to them, they still have to do their best in representing them. IANAL but I believe this is untrue. It would not be acceptable for a lawyer to represent to the court something that they have reason to believe is false.
  - re 7y ago
    "Do their best" does not mean "lie to the court." The defense does not have to turn over incriminating evidence that it does not intend to use, and lawyers can ethically and accurately enter a "not guilty" plea and argue that the prosecution has insufficient evidence available to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.
randyrand 7y ago
Your examples aren’t very convincing for biology and medicine. The counter examples seem way more numerous. Biologists enabled chemical warfare. Same harm has been done with mathematics. Physics. I think we largely let researches do research, and don’t hold researchers accountable for harm enabled with that research. In other words, self policing of customers seems like a newer and uncommon phenomenon.
- magduf 7y ago
  Sorry, I don't buy it. Biologists at large may have "enabled" biological (not chemical, that's chemists) warfare by learning about biology and contributing to humanity's understanding of it, but it was only specific biologists who actively created biological weapons, and only those biologists should be held accountable (and they should). Mathematicians at large may have enabled various terrible things again by contributing to our knowledge of math, but those mathematicians are blameless; only the ones who used their knowledge to (insert bad thing here) are the ones who can be blamed. Doing research that can be later used for good or evil is generally fine. To say that improving our understanding of biology is a bad thing is clearly ridiculous. However, actively contributing to a biological weapons program is a very different matter. For a hosting service, that's much more like active contribution than simply providing knowledge. The people who wrote the Linux kernel are akin to the biologists who simply increased our understanding of biology, but people who manage a hosting service with actual customers are not like this: they have the power to decide who is using the service for actual evil, and the ability to refuse their business.
darawk 7y ago
> Technical professions are generally hold responsible for what they enable. Biology: researchers can't do anything they want on plants, animals or humans. Medicine: doctors are expected to follow strict guidelines with their patients. Even engineering: implementing a cheating system for diesel tests will (rightfully) get engineers into trouble. Biology researchers are held responsible for what they do. Not usually what they enable. The examples you gave are biology researchers themselves doing something. The relevant analogy would be if we held the inventors of CRISPR responsible for some future super-virus engineered using it.
- sorryitstrue 7y ago
  I like you analogy if in your story, the inventors of CRISPR can exert some sort of power or control over the actors who are engineering a super-virus and thus make a moral decision to do so or not
  - buboard 7y ago
    In science, the only kind of control you can have is keep the research secret , or not do the research at all. Both are worse options
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  Hosted services is an ongoing act of support though - it's more like the inventors of CRISPR taking a contract that let someone use their equipment to engineer a supervirus.
- buboard 7y ago
  They should have never discovered DNA. Look at this mess, now the police have files on all of us and our cousins
justapassenger 7y ago
How does arguing if politician X or politician Y is better makes tech more responsible? Supporting politician X doesn't make person more moral or ethical. Same as believing in god A over god B. Politics discussions are just tribal wars.
- kemenaran 7y ago
  It seems you are understanding "politics at work" as "discussions about political parties, candidates and elections". IMHO, politics is much more than partisan politics. In the broad sense, it is reflecting and deciding on how live together. And parties and candidates are only a part (maybe the most divisive) of it.
nradov 7y ago
Software development is not actually a profession, it's just an occupation. That's not necessarily a bad thing but let's not pretend that it's something that it isn't. In order to be a profession on the level of law, civil engineering, medicine, arms, accounting, etc it would need — among other things — a clear code of ethics. Years ago the IEEE made some tentative steps toward turning software development into a profession but they didn't get much traction.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I think you're confusing "being a profession" with "having the trappings of a profession".
  - nradov 7y ago
    No I haven't confused anything at all. Perhaps you misunderstood my comment.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Nope. I disagree with your definitions. And I disagree with the definiteness of your definitions. That is, you speak as though this were the only possible definition of "profession". In that, I believe you are in error.
      - nradov 7y ago
        The definition of a profession in the western world has been well established and generally understood for centuries. My comment was fully consistent with that definition.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        From dictionary.com: 1. a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science: the profession of teaching. Compare learned profession. 2. any vocation or business. 3. the body of persons engaged in an occupation or calling: to be respected by the medical profession. It goes on, but the rest have to do with "profession" in the sense of declarations. So, you can make your claim all you want that you have the correct definition of "profession", but you seem to be mistaken...
buboard 7y ago
> hold responsible for what they enable. That's irrelevant. The rules are for conducting responsible research, not for pondering the potential misuse or evil use of whatever technology. Physics and bio have a far greater record of evil uses, and it was never questionable. It was accepted that scientists do science, and ask questions later. The before-the-fact crusades are a very recent (like, 10 years) phenomenon limited to the west coast of the US
- kemenaran 7y ago
  > limited to the west coast of the US I'm from Europe, for the record :) That said, you're right, of course there are no laws regulating the potential misuse or evil use of research results. However I feel we, as societies, tend to feel that researchers have some kind of moral responsibility in the use of their discoveries. That somehow, the researchers working on nuclear bombs are not entirely unrelated to its use – and, on the other side, that Alexander Fleming deserves some moral credits for the uses of penicillin. My point is that in software engineering we are usually held responsible neither by law or by this shared understanding.
scarejunba 7y ago
This fetishization of these "professional careers" has got to stop. Particularly this fictional glamourization of the philosopher professional who is held responsible for all outcomes of his work. To this day, Dr. Jeffrey Glassberg roams free despite mistaken forensic DNA tests putting so many innocent people in jail. That is one, but I could produce hundreds. As a matter of fact, I challenge you to name a single inventor (who, for sake of this argument, we may choose to be also a 'professional') who is innocent by this metric.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

> Technical professions are generally hold responsible for what they enable. Not really. Doctors are expected to do the best for their patient without worrying about societal consequences. If Hitler came to a doctor in need of medical help, the doctor would be ethically required to do their best for him, desolate the negative consequences of Hitler to society. Same with lawyers. Even if their client is a serial murderer and has co fessed their guilt to them, they still have to do their best in representing them.

couchand 7y ago
> Even if their client is a serial murderer and has co fessed their guilt to them, they still have to do their best in representing them. IANAL but I believe this is untrue. It would not be acceptable for a lawyer to represent to the court something that they have reason to believe is false.
- re 7y ago
  "Do their best" does not mean "lie to the court." The defense does not have to turn over incriminating evidence that it does not intend to use, and lawyers can ethically and accurately enter a "not guilty" plea and argue that the prosecution has insufficient evidence available to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

randyrand 7y ago

Your examples aren’t very convincing for biology and medicine. The counter examples seem way more numerous. Biologists enabled chemical warfare. Same harm has been done with mathematics. Physics. I think we largely let researches do research, and don’t hold researchers accountable for harm enabled with that research. In other words, self policing of customers seems like a newer and uncommon phenomenon.

magduf 7y ago
Sorry, I don't buy it. Biologists at large may have "enabled" biological (not chemical, that's chemists) warfare by learning about biology and contributing to humanity's understanding of it, but it was only specific biologists who actively created biological weapons, and only those biologists should be held accountable (and they should). Mathematicians at large may have enabled various terrible things again by contributing to our knowledge of math, but those mathematicians are blameless; only the ones who used their knowledge to (insert bad thing here) are the ones who can be blamed. Doing research that can be later used for good or evil is generally fine. To say that improving our understanding of biology is a bad thing is clearly ridiculous. However, actively contributing to a biological weapons program is a very different matter. For a hosting service, that's much more like active contribution than simply providing knowledge. The people who wrote the Linux kernel are akin to the biologists who simply increased our understanding of biology, but people who manage a hosting service with actual customers are not like this: they have the power to decide who is using the service for actual evil, and the ability to refuse their business.

darawk 7y ago

> Technical professions are generally hold responsible for what they enable. Biology: researchers can't do anything they want on plants, animals or humans. Medicine: doctors are expected to follow strict guidelines with their patients. Even engineering: implementing a cheating system for diesel tests will (rightfully) get engineers into trouble. Biology researchers are held responsible for what they do. Not usually what they enable. The examples you gave are biology researchers themselves doing something. The relevant analogy would be if we held the inventors of CRISPR responsible for some future super-virus engineered using it.

sorryitstrue 7y ago
I like you analogy if in your story, the inventors of CRISPR can exert some sort of power or control over the actors who are engineering a super-virus and thus make a moral decision to do so or not
- buboard 7y ago
  In science, the only kind of control you can have is keep the research secret , or not do the research at all. Both are worse options
lazyasciiart 7y ago
Hosted services is an ongoing act of support though - it's more like the inventors of CRISPR taking a contract that let someone use their equipment to engineer a supervirus.
buboard 7y ago
They should have never discovered DNA. Look at this mess, now the police have files on all of us and our cousins

justapassenger 7y ago

How does arguing if politician X or politician Y is better makes tech more responsible? Supporting politician X doesn't make person more moral or ethical. Same as believing in god A over god B. Politics discussions are just tribal wars.

kemenaran 7y ago
It seems you are understanding "politics at work" as "discussions about political parties, candidates and elections". IMHO, politics is much more than partisan politics. In the broad sense, it is reflecting and deciding on how live together. And parties and candidates are only a part (maybe the most divisive) of it.

nradov 7y ago

Software development is not actually a profession, it's just an occupation. That's not necessarily a bad thing but let's not pretend that it's something that it isn't. In order to be a profession on the level of law, civil engineering, medicine, arms, accounting, etc it would need — among other things — a clear code of ethics. Years ago the IEEE made some tentative steps toward turning software development into a profession but they didn't get much traction.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I think you're confusing "being a profession" with "having the trappings of a profession".
- nradov 7y ago
  No I haven't confused anything at all. Perhaps you misunderstood my comment.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Nope. I disagree with your definitions. And I disagree with the definiteness of your definitions. That is, you speak as though this were the only possible definition of "profession". In that, I believe you are in error.
    - nradov 7y ago
      The definition of a profession in the western world has been well established and generally understood for centuries. My comment was fully consistent with that definition.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        From dictionary.com: 1. a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science: the profession of teaching. Compare learned profession. 2. any vocation or business. 3. the body of persons engaged in an occupation or calling: to be respected by the medical profession. It goes on, but the rest have to do with "profession" in the sense of declarations. So, you can make your claim all you want that you have the correct definition of "profession", but you seem to be mistaken...

buboard 7y ago

> hold responsible for what they enable. That's irrelevant. The rules are for conducting responsible research, not for pondering the potential misuse or evil use of whatever technology. Physics and bio have a far greater record of evil uses, and it was never questionable. It was accepted that scientists do science, and ask questions later. The before-the-fact crusades are a very recent (like, 10 years) phenomenon limited to the west coast of the US

kemenaran 7y ago
> limited to the west coast of the US I'm from Europe, for the record :) That said, you're right, of course there are no laws regulating the potential misuse or evil use of research results. However I feel we, as societies, tend to feel that researchers have some kind of moral responsibility in the use of their discoveries. That somehow, the researchers working on nuclear bombs are not entirely unrelated to its use – and, on the other side, that Alexander Fleming deserves some moral credits for the uses of penicillin. My point is that in software engineering we are usually held responsible neither by law or by this shared understanding.

scarejunba 7y ago

This fetishization of these "professional careers" has got to stop. Particularly this fictional glamourization of the philosopher professional who is held responsible for all outcomes of his work. To this day, Dr. Jeffrey Glassberg roams free despite mistaken forensic DNA tests putting so many innocent people in jail. That is one, but I could produce hundreds. As a matter of fact, I challenge you to name a single inventor (who, for sake of this argument, we may choose to be also a 'professional') who is innocent by this metric.