3 ms·

> Very few serious software engineers -- and virtually zero computer scientists -- have ever held this opinion. It's an extreme minority view. And yet here we

> Very few serious software engineers -- and virtually zero computer scientists -- have ever held this opinion. It's an extreme minority view. And yet here we are selling software, like facial recognition, to organizations that can ruin people and have little oversight based on how well those same algorithms are supposed to work?

throwawaygh 6y ago
> And yet here we are selling software, like facial recognition Speak for yourself. (Also, last I checked, most CEOs, boards, and sales forces don't have technical backgrounds.) > to organizations that can ruin people and have little oversight based on how well those same algorithms are supposed to work? And how do you get oversight? That's a political problem, not a philosophical problem. If you want to sway the opinions of regulators and legislators, please do not reach for the philosophy dept. Convincing regulators and legislators to do stuff is not the job of a philosopher. So what is the job of a philosopher? This kind of brings us back to my original point from which we've now strayed. Philosophy is a field of study. The job of a philosopher is to do philosophy. In order to do that job well, philosophers require more input from technical experts than they currently receive. This matters precisely because philosophy is important; good philosophy is the lifeblood of a healthy society, but it's increasingly difficult to do good philosophy without some scientific training.
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  I do not sell such software. You blame companies, but is that to mean that engineers are supposed to turn a blind eye to ethical issues in the products their employers sell? Other engineering disciplins whole-heartedly disagree. Regulation is besides the point. The comment I replied to said that software engineers have never held the belief that their algorithms aren't biased and I was simply pointing out that that is either false on a large scale or those engineers are complicit with the use of their software in unethical ways because of those bias issues in the software.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > but is that to mean that engineers are supposed to turn a blind eye to ethical issues in the products their employers sell? Those engineers understand the obvious problems with facial recognition software. Everyone does. The engineers building this software don't need philosophical training. Instead, they need a personal/professional ethics (or, in lieu of such self-regulatory instincts, government regulation). Again, neither of those presents a philosophical problem. > Other engineering disciplins whole-heartedly disagree. Regulation is besides the point. I disagree. Other engineers disagree precisely because they operate in highly regulated disciplines. PE codes of ethics are not (just) personal ethical commitments; rather, they are (also) backed by the force of law. BTW, lots of engineers build WMDs.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I think it's helpful to talk about "bias issues" specifically. When we talk about them in the abstract, they always seem to carry this boogeyman-ish quality, but when we talk about them as concrete instances, we can almost always (and rather easily) come up with concrete mitigations. For example, some people have rightly expressed concern about statistical models of criminality derived from law enforcement data, so we augment and weigh that data with other sources, such as victim surveys, hospital records, and so forth. Of course, that doesn't eliminate all bias (we can never completely eliminate bias) but it's a significant improvement, especially when the alternative to "using a formal statistical model" is "using law enforcement officers' personal judgment". We can also make available certain information about the training data set and the methodology to provide an audit trail. Very rarely are these ethical issues really as insurmountable as critics seem to imply when they speak about "biased algorithms" in the abstract.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
YawningAngel 6y ago
We don't sell that software because it is the consensus of those qualified to judge that it's a good idea, we sell it because we live in a market economy, it is legal, and institutions want to buy it. The problem here is with the law and the institutions.
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  You blame companies and the market economy, but is that to mean that engineers are supposed to turn a blind eye to ethical issues in the products their employers sell? Other engineering disciplins whole-heartedly disagree. My point is that either the statement that it's widely held that software can be biased is wrong (or more generously that the concern is not considered), or software engineers are complicit in unethical uses of their software because of known biases.
  - YawningAngel 6y ago
    I think individual engineers absolutely have a duty to act ethically, and that that duty includes not working on unethical things. However, I don't think that stating that the behaviour is unethical and that people shouldn't do it helps solve the problem, whereas I do think that we could ban bullshit ML woo or reform our institutions so that they don't use it to spy on people

throwawaygh 6y ago

> And yet here we are selling software, like facial recognition Speak for yourself. (Also, last I checked, most CEOs, boards, and sales forces don't have technical backgrounds.) > to organizations that can ruin people and have little oversight based on how well those same algorithms are supposed to work? And how do you get oversight? That's a political problem, not a philosophical problem. If you want to sway the opinions of regulators and legislators, please do not reach for the philosophy dept. Convincing regulators and legislators to do stuff is not the job of a philosopher. So what is the job of a philosopher? This kind of brings us back to my original point from which we've now strayed. Philosophy is a field of study. The job of a philosopher is to do philosophy. In order to do that job well, philosophers require more input from technical experts than they currently receive. This matters precisely because philosophy is important; good philosophy is the lifeblood of a healthy society, but it's increasingly difficult to do good philosophy without some scientific training.

jimktrains2 6y ago
I do not sell such software. You blame companies, but is that to mean that engineers are supposed to turn a blind eye to ethical issues in the products their employers sell? Other engineering disciplins whole-heartedly disagree. Regulation is besides the point. The comment I replied to said that software engineers have never held the belief that their algorithms aren't biased and I was simply pointing out that that is either false on a large scale or those engineers are complicit with the use of their software in unethical ways because of those bias issues in the software.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > but is that to mean that engineers are supposed to turn a blind eye to ethical issues in the products their employers sell? Those engineers understand the obvious problems with facial recognition software. Everyone does. The engineers building this software don't need philosophical training. Instead, they need a personal/professional ethics (or, in lieu of such self-regulatory instincts, government regulation). Again, neither of those presents a philosophical problem. > Other engineering disciplins whole-heartedly disagree. Regulation is besides the point. I disagree. Other engineers disagree precisely because they operate in highly regulated disciplines. PE codes of ethics are not (just) personal ethical commitments; rather, they are (also) backed by the force of law. BTW, lots of engineers build WMDs.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I think it's helpful to talk about "bias issues" specifically. When we talk about them in the abstract, they always seem to carry this boogeyman-ish quality, but when we talk about them as concrete instances, we can almost always (and rather easily) come up with concrete mitigations. For example, some people have rightly expressed concern about statistical models of criminality derived from law enforcement data, so we augment and weigh that data with other sources, such as victim surveys, hospital records, and so forth. Of course, that doesn't eliminate all bias (we can never completely eliminate bias) but it's a significant improvement, especially when the alternative to "using a formal statistical model" is "using law enforcement officers' personal judgment". We can also make available certain information about the training data set and the methodology to provide an audit trail. Very rarely are these ethical issues really as insurmountable as critics seem to imply when they speak about "biased algorithms" in the abstract.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

YawningAngel 6y ago

We don't sell that software because it is the consensus of those qualified to judge that it's a good idea, we sell it because we live in a market economy, it is legal, and institutions want to buy it. The problem here is with the law and the institutions.

jimktrains2 6y ago
You blame companies and the market economy, but is that to mean that engineers are supposed to turn a blind eye to ethical issues in the products their employers sell? Other engineering disciplins whole-heartedly disagree. My point is that either the statement that it's widely held that software can be biased is wrong (or more generously that the concern is not considered), or software engineers are complicit in unethical uses of their software because of known biases.
- YawningAngel 6y ago
  I think individual engineers absolutely have a duty to act ethically, and that that duty includes not working on unethical things. However, I don't think that stating that the behaviour is unethical and that people shouldn't do it helps solve the problem, whereas I do think that we could ban bullshit ML woo or reform our institutions so that they don't use it to spy on people