5 ms·

Here’s the Guardian article which linked the site: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/feb/07/ai-in-the-adult-industry-porn-may-soon-feature-people-who-don

Here’s the Guardian article which linked the site: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/feb/07/ai-in-the-adult-industry-porn-may-soon-feature-people-who-dont-exist https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/feb/07/ai-in-the-ad... To my mind there is a massive need for us in the software world to pause and think about the ethics of all of this. Engineers more broadly have well developed ethical codes, we should too.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
umvi 7y ago
So are you saying software developers should have to take the equivalent of a Bar exam in order to practice software development in a given state? That way ethical code violations have teeth because you can be debarred. As of now anyone and their dog can practice software development and I'm not sure what a nebulous "ethical code" would imply for them.
- rpastuszak 7y ago
  Arguably software engineering compared to engineering in a broader sense has a bigger issue with the “we did this because we could, not because we should” attitude. I feel like a “formalised ethical code” would result in more clever approaches of avoiding it. We don’t need to look far to find the examples (looking at ya ad tech)
  - lagadu 7y ago
    But what's the incentive for doing that? What are you offering to those who work on adtech for them stop or to those who do work for $EvilCorp.
    - re-actor 7y ago
      Moral decency doesn't warrant reward.
      - freeone3000 7y ago
        Then why should I comply with your sense of morality, if you have nothing to offer?
        re-actor 7y ago
        I only ask that you develop your own sense of morality and abide by it.
        freeone3000 7y ago
        The entire point of a code of ethics is to provide a strong minimum standard to keep the morally bankrupt in line. We don't write them for moral people.
      - mavhc 7y ago
        Does if you fine the company millions when the building falls down
    - bumby 7y ago
      I think it would have to start with either regulation or customers requiring it. I.e., contractually require someone licensed (where the license carries an ethic standard) or legally require it in areas that are 'in the public interest'
- bumby 7y ago
  I've often wondered if software engineers would benefit from the accountability of licensing like other engineering disciplines, especially as it pertains to safety critical systems. It's a bit shocking for me to know a mechanical, electrical, or civil design in, say, a power plant may require a Professional Engineer to officially stamp it but any ol' software engineer can write code on that system and fire it up. My understanding is that NCEES lists a controls systems license but I have yet to meet a single person with it or hear of a project that required it. To a certain extent, I wonder if software development rigor/oversight is in an adolescence similar to what it must have been like for mechanical systems during the early parts of the industrial revolution.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    This was a big debate in the 90s. The "industry" headed it off at the gates (partly thanks to communication media such as ... usenet :) It might resurface, but I expect to hear the same arguments used against it, all over again. I'd be suprised if it ever came to pass in the same sense as PE requirements.
    - bumby 7y ago
      What were the main arguments back then?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
        Well, there were a couple that I remember. 1) programming is more like an art than a science, and so should not be regulated like engineering 2) the capital/labor requirements for programming are minimal - basically anyone could do it - so we should not worry about trying to license something that people could (and do) do at home. 3) there's no agreement about what would be required to get a license. 4) free software would die Of course, some of these really do not hold up to close inspection. It's true that there is an "art" to programming, but not much more than there is in architecture for example, and there's no reason you couldn't require a license for cases where you do work for others rather than yourself. Since the 90s, it's become a _little_ more clear what the components of a s/w dev license might be, but perhaps still not enough to really pin it down. And yes, it would probably kill the free software world.
- Balgair 7y ago
  Probably something more like a PE. From the NSPE website a PE entails: "To become licensed, engineers must complete a four-year college degree, work under a Professional Engineer for at least four years, pass two intensive competency exams and earn a license from their state's licensure board. Then, to retain their licenses, PEs must continually maintain and improve their skills throughout their careers." Most PEs that I have worked with are very diligent. You don't get yahoos going that far. Generally, they are top-notch engineers. Think '10X' engineers, but for oil wells and churches. I mean, look at any large structure on Wikipedia, most of the time you'll find the engineer's name in the side placard, not just the firm's name. PEs are serious, dedicated, and smart people. I mean, their stamp is on those documents and they go to jail when the bridge fails. So, for software, if you have an exam of the PE's caliber, you essentially guarantee '10X' engineers. The workforce is more highly paid, yes, but it is of a much higher quality. Bugs get solved faster, stand-ups don't last 30 minutes, the wiki is updated by everyone, etc. Employers know that their candidates really are good stuff, less whiteboards or take-homes are needed. Also, possibly when something messes up, the engineer is the one responsible, not the company. So offloading the insurance to the employees is not the worst thing for a company. Honestly, it would not be a bad system and I think would be a much calmer and better one.
  - woodrowbarlow 7y ago
    PE for software engineering does (or did?) exist from NCEES: https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/software/ https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/software/ i'm seeing some sources that say it was discontinued after 2019 due to lack of interest, and the main "PE" page no longer links to the software PE exam.
  - TomVDB 7y ago
    Being smart enough to earn the title of PE and agreeing to being personally responsible for bugs in a large body of code is IMO a contradiction.
- 3Y7RaZUo 7y ago
  That would be a horrible idea. Software developers should be encouraged to think about and discuss ethical issues by other software developers, employers, universities, and people in general. We need increased awareness of ethics but we don't need more government involvement or any other form of coercion. Governments are already far less ethical then pretty much any other organisation or institution.
  - rswail 7y ago
    This "government involvement is bad" is a crock. Regulation is what makes a society. As an institution, they are no less "ethical" than corporations, in fact, neither ethics nor morals are relevant to corporate or government bodies. Morals and ethics are about people. Laws and regulation are about how those morals and ethics are reduced to practice.
    - 3Y7RaZUo 7y ago
      Voluntary cooperation and peaceful competition is what makes a society. A government is just a group of people who attempt to maintain a monopoly on violence and use it to enforce their will on others. I certainly think they are less ethical then people who do not attempt to enforce their will on others. Government created laws and regulation are just threats. They tell you nothing about what is right or ethical. They only tell you how a particular group of people want you to behave and what they will try to do to you if you refuse to obey. Anyone with enough capacity for violence and willingness to use it can create a law but no amount of force can change what is right or wrong.
24gttghh 7y ago
I have brought this up before, but this already exists. https://www.computer.org/education/code-of-ethics https://www.computer.org/education/code-of-ethics Copyright 1999. I was taught ethics in my college work, so clearly everyone else just ignores it like they do for the various other fields where there is an ethics code. People suck.
- vidarh 7y ago
  The issue is that there's no pressure on employers to require it, so there's no advantage on e.g. employability or salary from getting these codes. I live in the UK and was considering going through the British Computer Society certification process years ago, but dropped it, because while I do care about the ethical side etc. the additional amount of effort it'd take to document skills I already had was not worth it when prospective employers in the fields I've worked in just did not care.
mLuby 7y ago
Agreed on taking a collective breath and evaluating. For "real" engineers, is it fair to say their ethical questions are more easily constrained than those in software? I assume it usually reduces to "should I accept a lower-than-average safety margin to save money on a part/structure that might fail and hurt people?" Maybe "should I make this vehicle accommodate extremely tall people?" or "can a child hurt themselves with this device?" Honestly lawyers feel like the closest analogue to software engineers.
- bumby 7y ago
  > For "real" engineers, is it fair to say their ethical questions are more easily constrained than those in software? For capital "E" Engineers (i.e., those with a State license), I would say yes. They are required to abide by specific ethics and some states require regular ethics training. If they certifying a design, they are putting their name/license/livelihood on the line that it meets a minimum standard. This standard is usually defined by specific codes. The problem I often see in software is that many codes (if they even exist) are looked at as a "nice to have" not a "must have", unless they are contractually obligated. If I show a code-base doesn't adhere to a specific industry standard, the reaction is often "meh". This is in contrast to other engineering disciplines who tend to begrudgingly acknowledge they have to re-design to meet such a standard. The issue with some of your examples is that much of engineering work happens under an "industrial exemption" meaning they don't have to be a licensed engineer.
kragen 7y ago
The Free Software Foundation has been promoting a well-developed ethical code for software engineering since the 1980s: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html Consider https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-root-of-this-problem.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-root-of-this-problem.html and https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html as recent entries. It covers most of the widely debated issues in software today, including spam, malware, DRM, invasion of privacy, undue influence by one participant in the ecosystem, copyright infringement, and bait-and-switch terms of service. It even addresses the question of writing software that could be misused. It isn't widely accepted because a lot of programmers don't like it. They don't like it because they make money by violating it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

umvi 7y ago

So are you saying software developers should have to take the equivalent of a Bar exam in order to practice software development in a given state? That way ethical code violations have teeth because you can be debarred. As of now anyone and their dog can practice software development and I'm not sure what a nebulous "ethical code" would imply for them.

rpastuszak 7y ago
Arguably software engineering compared to engineering in a broader sense has a bigger issue with the “we did this because we could, not because we should” attitude. I feel like a “formalised ethical code” would result in more clever approaches of avoiding it. We don’t need to look far to find the examples (looking at ya ad tech)
- lagadu 7y ago
  But what's the incentive for doing that? What are you offering to those who work on adtech for them stop or to those who do work for $EvilCorp.
  - re-actor 7y ago
    Moral decency doesn't warrant reward.
    - freeone3000 7y ago
      Then why should I comply with your sense of morality, if you have nothing to offer?
      - re-actor 7y ago
        I only ask that you develop your own sense of morality and abide by it.
        freeone3000 7y ago
        The entire point of a code of ethics is to provide a strong minimum standard to keep the morally bankrupt in line. We don't write them for moral people.
    - mavhc 7y ago
      Does if you fine the company millions when the building falls down
  - bumby 7y ago
    I think it would have to start with either regulation or customers requiring it. I.e., contractually require someone licensed (where the license carries an ethic standard) or legally require it in areas that are 'in the public interest'
bumby 7y ago
I've often wondered if software engineers would benefit from the accountability of licensing like other engineering disciplines, especially as it pertains to safety critical systems. It's a bit shocking for me to know a mechanical, electrical, or civil design in, say, a power plant may require a Professional Engineer to officially stamp it but any ol' software engineer can write code on that system and fire it up. My understanding is that NCEES lists a controls systems license but I have yet to meet a single person with it or hear of a project that required it. To a certain extent, I wonder if software development rigor/oversight is in an adolescence similar to what it must have been like for mechanical systems during the early parts of the industrial revolution.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  This was a big debate in the 90s. The "industry" headed it off at the gates (partly thanks to communication media such as ... usenet :) It might resurface, but I expect to hear the same arguments used against it, all over again. I'd be suprised if it ever came to pass in the same sense as PE requirements.
  - bumby 7y ago
    What were the main arguments back then?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
      Well, there were a couple that I remember. 1) programming is more like an art than a science, and so should not be regulated like engineering 2) the capital/labor requirements for programming are minimal - basically anyone could do it - so we should not worry about trying to license something that people could (and do) do at home. 3) there's no agreement about what would be required to get a license. 4) free software would die Of course, some of these really do not hold up to close inspection. It's true that there is an "art" to programming, but not much more than there is in architecture for example, and there's no reason you couldn't require a license for cases where you do work for others rather than yourself. Since the 90s, it's become a _little_ more clear what the components of a s/w dev license might be, but perhaps still not enough to really pin it down. And yes, it would probably kill the free software world.
Balgair 7y ago
Probably something more like a PE. From the NSPE website a PE entails: "To become licensed, engineers must complete a four-year college degree, work under a Professional Engineer for at least four years, pass two intensive competency exams and earn a license from their state's licensure board. Then, to retain their licenses, PEs must continually maintain and improve their skills throughout their careers." Most PEs that I have worked with are very diligent. You don't get yahoos going that far. Generally, they are top-notch engineers. Think '10X' engineers, but for oil wells and churches. I mean, look at any large structure on Wikipedia, most of the time you'll find the engineer's name in the side placard, not just the firm's name. PEs are serious, dedicated, and smart people. I mean, their stamp is on those documents and they go to jail when the bridge fails. So, for software, if you have an exam of the PE's caliber, you essentially guarantee '10X' engineers. The workforce is more highly paid, yes, but it is of a much higher quality. Bugs get solved faster, stand-ups don't last 30 minutes, the wiki is updated by everyone, etc. Employers know that their candidates really are good stuff, less whiteboards or take-homes are needed. Also, possibly when something messes up, the engineer is the one responsible, not the company. So offloading the insurance to the employees is not the worst thing for a company. Honestly, it would not be a bad system and I think would be a much calmer and better one.
- woodrowbarlow 7y ago
  PE for software engineering does (or did?) exist from NCEES: https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/software/ https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/software/ i'm seeing some sources that say it was discontinued after 2019 due to lack of interest, and the main "PE" page no longer links to the software PE exam.
- TomVDB 7y ago
  Being smart enough to earn the title of PE and agreeing to being personally responsible for bugs in a large body of code is IMO a contradiction.
3Y7RaZUo 7y ago
That would be a horrible idea. Software developers should be encouraged to think about and discuss ethical issues by other software developers, employers, universities, and people in general. We need increased awareness of ethics but we don't need more government involvement or any other form of coercion. Governments are already far less ethical then pretty much any other organisation or institution.
- rswail 7y ago
  This "government involvement is bad" is a crock. Regulation is what makes a society. As an institution, they are no less "ethical" than corporations, in fact, neither ethics nor morals are relevant to corporate or government bodies. Morals and ethics are about people. Laws and regulation are about how those morals and ethics are reduced to practice.
  - 3Y7RaZUo 7y ago
    Voluntary cooperation and peaceful competition is what makes a society. A government is just a group of people who attempt to maintain a monopoly on violence and use it to enforce their will on others. I certainly think they are less ethical then people who do not attempt to enforce their will on others. Government created laws and regulation are just threats. They tell you nothing about what is right or ethical. They only tell you how a particular group of people want you to behave and what they will try to do to you if you refuse to obey. Anyone with enough capacity for violence and willingness to use it can create a law but no amount of force can change what is right or wrong.

24gttghh 7y ago

I have brought this up before, but this already exists. https://www.computer.org/education/code-of-ethics https://www.computer.org/education/code-of-ethics Copyright 1999. I was taught ethics in my college work, so clearly everyone else just ignores it like they do for the various other fields where there is an ethics code. People suck.

vidarh 7y ago
The issue is that there's no pressure on employers to require it, so there's no advantage on e.g. employability or salary from getting these codes. I live in the UK and was considering going through the British Computer Society certification process years ago, but dropped it, because while I do care about the ethical side etc. the additional amount of effort it'd take to document skills I already had was not worth it when prospective employers in the fields I've worked in just did not care.

mLuby 7y ago

Agreed on taking a collective breath and evaluating. For "real" engineers, is it fair to say their ethical questions are more easily constrained than those in software? I assume it usually reduces to "should I accept a lower-than-average safety margin to save money on a part/structure that might fail and hurt people?" Maybe "should I make this vehicle accommodate extremely tall people?" or "can a child hurt themselves with this device?" Honestly lawyers feel like the closest analogue to software engineers.

bumby 7y ago
> For "real" engineers, is it fair to say their ethical questions are more easily constrained than those in software? For capital "E" Engineers (i.e., those with a State license), I would say yes. They are required to abide by specific ethics and some states require regular ethics training. If they certifying a design, they are putting their name/license/livelihood on the line that it meets a minimum standard. This standard is usually defined by specific codes. The problem I often see in software is that many codes (if they even exist) are looked at as a "nice to have" not a "must have", unless they are contractually obligated. If I show a code-base doesn't adhere to a specific industry standard, the reaction is often "meh". This is in contrast to other engineering disciplines who tend to begrudgingly acknowledge they have to re-design to meet such a standard. The issue with some of your examples is that much of engineering work happens under an "industrial exemption" meaning they don't have to be a licensed engineer.

kragen 7y ago

The Free Software Foundation has been promoting a well-developed ethical code for software engineering since the 1980s: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html Consider https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-root-of-this-problem.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-root-of-this-problem.html and https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html as recent entries. It covers most of the widely debated issues in software today, including spam, malware, DRM, invasion of privacy, undue influence by one participant in the ecosystem, copyright infringement, and bait-and-switch terms of service. It even addresses the question of writing software that could be misused. It isn't widely accepted because a lot of programmers don't like it. They don't like it because they make money by violating it.