5 ms·

> Why does a community need a moral stance on external issues? Some communities choose to do so. Einstein, Szilard, Pauling (and others) formed the Emergency C

> Why does a community need a moral stance on external issues? Some communities choose to do so. Einstein, Szilard, Pauling (and others) formed the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists to argue against nuclear weapons at the dawn of the Atomic era. And many scientists have taken a stand against nuclear weapons since then. Their actions have, at least, influenced the proliferation of these weapons and informed the public about their dangers. Would you argue that it wasn't "their business?" One could make a case that machine learning has negative consequences/possibilities that are similar in scope to nuclear weapons. The people who work with and understand machine learning are in the best position to take a stand against abuse of these technologies. I would say it's their responsibility to speak out, otherwise a despot will do it for them.

0-_-0 6y ago
> Their actions have, at least, influenced the proliferation of these weapons How? The number of nuclear weapons was growing rapidly until the 80s, to the point where dozens of bombs were aimed at single targets. > informed the public about their dangers Seeing the effects of bombs informed the public, not a committee
- crispyambulance 6y ago
  > How? The number of nuclear weapons was growing rapidly until the 80s. It's hard to assess their impact, but that doesn't mean it was insignificant. Could we have been in a worse position? Definitely. Someone might have "pushed the button" by now were it not for decades of work from organizations (some of whom consisted of scientists) lobbying against nuclear weapons and their proliferation. > Seeing the effects of bombs informed the public, not a committee The nuclear tests demonstrated that the weapons work. There are other effects such as "nuclear winter" that have not been (and hopefully never will be) demonstrated. Sadly, because of Chernobyl, we do have examples of what happens to contaminated areas. Understanding and communicating the effects beyond "blast radius" is best done by scientists and health experts.

0-_-0 6y ago

> Their actions have, at least, influenced the proliferation of these weapons How? The number of nuclear weapons was growing rapidly until the 80s, to the point where dozens of bombs were aimed at single targets. > informed the public about their dangers Seeing the effects of bombs informed the public, not a committee

crispyambulance 6y ago
> How? The number of nuclear weapons was growing rapidly until the 80s. It's hard to assess their impact, but that doesn't mean it was insignificant. Could we have been in a worse position? Definitely. Someone might have "pushed the button" by now were it not for decades of work from organizations (some of whom consisted of scientists) lobbying against nuclear weapons and their proliferation. > Seeing the effects of bombs informed the public, not a committee The nuclear tests demonstrated that the weapons work. There are other effects such as "nuclear winter" that have not been (and hopefully never will be) demonstrated. Sadly, because of Chernobyl, we do have examples of what happens to contaminated areas. Understanding and communicating the effects beyond "blast radius" is best done by scientists and health experts.