3 ms·

I don't think you meant to do this but you seem to have inadvertently made a very damn good argument for "guns don't kill people people kill people. People are

I don't think you meant to do this but you seem to have inadvertently made a very damn good argument for "guns don't kill people people kill people. People are getting screwed because they are at the long end of an unbroken chain of crap. Crappy organizations buy crappy software and crappy professors take the results seriously. The fact that there exists a crappy tool that flags all the black people as cheaters (or whatever, point is that the false positives are unacceptable common and unacceptably distributed). Blaming the gun (the software in this case) is tacitly condoning the unbroken chain of half a dozen people/entities that are failing to do the job they are being paid to do. The software developers shouldn't be building crap software. The companies shouldn't be selling crap software. The universities shouldn't be buying crap software. The professors shouldn't be using the results of crap software. To look at that situation and say "yeah the problem here is that this crap software exists" is beyond naive. The problem is that nobody is being accountable for the bad outcome. I'm not asking for a whipping boy or a scapegoat here, the problem is that when nobody can be held fully responsible it seems like nobody even gets held partly responsible.

klodolph 6y ago
This argument is fallacious. Your argument assumes that “blaming the gun” is condoning the users, and this is a false dilemma. There’s really no room for absolutism, where blame is assigned to one source rather than distributed among many contributing factors. Imagine how dangerous air travel would still be if, after an accident, investigators looked for only one cause to blame, and tacitly condoned anything else they came across in their investigations.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >This argument is fallacious. Re-read my comment. My point is that fault is distributed sufficiently that accountability seems to evaporate. This is a systemic or organizational problem. Anti-cheating software is just the form this specific instance has taken. >Your argument assumes that “blaming the gun” is condoning the users Well until now you weren't throwing even the slightest bit of shade in their direction. >and this is a false dilemma. And you've created a false middle ground. >Imagine how dangerous air travel would still be if, after an accident, investigators looked for only one cause to blame, and tacitly condoned anything else they came across in their investigations. What's the difference between "dangerous harmful cheating software" and "cheating software that's being shoehorned into use cases in which it was never expected to be used"? That's why you don't blame the (metaphorical) gun. Everything is just tools. The FAA doesn't go off half cocked about the evils of grade-2 fasteners because once upon a time an engineer thought a grade-2 would be enough when he should have used a grade-5. I can't believe I have to defend (invasive to the point of being unethical) anti cheating software but these sorts of software tools are just tools and can be used either wisely or poorly. The software doesn't know or care how it's being used. In an industrial setting they can (and are, same underlying tech different companies) be used to design more effective interfaces to reduce errors (which I think we would all agree is a net positive contribution to the world).
  - klodolph 6y ago
    > Re-read my comment. Stopped reading at that point, cheers.

klodolph 6y ago

This argument is fallacious. Your argument assumes that “blaming the gun” is condoning the users, and this is a false dilemma. There’s really no room for absolutism, where blame is assigned to one source rather than distributed among many contributing factors. Imagine how dangerous air travel would still be if, after an accident, investigators looked for only one cause to blame, and tacitly condoned anything else they came across in their investigations.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>This argument is fallacious. Re-read my comment. My point is that fault is distributed sufficiently that accountability seems to evaporate. This is a systemic or organizational problem. Anti-cheating software is just the form this specific instance has taken. >Your argument assumes that “blaming the gun” is condoning the users Well until now you weren't throwing even the slightest bit of shade in their direction. >and this is a false dilemma. And you've created a false middle ground. >Imagine how dangerous air travel would still be if, after an accident, investigators looked for only one cause to blame, and tacitly condoned anything else they came across in their investigations. What's the difference between "dangerous harmful cheating software" and "cheating software that's being shoehorned into use cases in which it was never expected to be used"? That's why you don't blame the (metaphorical) gun. Everything is just tools. The FAA doesn't go off half cocked about the evils of grade-2 fasteners because once upon a time an engineer thought a grade-2 would be enough when he should have used a grade-5. I can't believe I have to defend (invasive to the point of being unethical) anti cheating software but these sorts of software tools are just tools and can be used either wisely or poorly. The software doesn't know or care how it's being used. In an industrial setting they can (and are, same underlying tech different companies) be used to design more effective interfaces to reduce errors (which I think we would all agree is a net positive contribution to the world).
- klodolph 6y ago
  > Re-read my comment. Stopped reading at that point, cheers.