4 ms·

As always when these topics are brought up with that sense of urgency, I will raise my hand and ask "Whose ethics? Unethical according to who?"

PeterisP 6y ago
A particular aspect of this ethical discussion is that the attitudes towards social institutions vary throughout the world, but the science is global - so any ethics criteria (or lack of them) for a conference essentially mean a "forced export" of these attitudes from one place to the rest of the world. For example, right now I personally am considering a particular ML research project in cooperation with our local police agency. I am aware that in many places around the world there is an antagonistic relationship between the local communities or the people and their police system, where helping the police can be reasonably considered unethical or even outright evil in certain areas for totalitarian regimes. But I'm happy (or privileged?) to live in a place where I do trust my law enforcement to be on the side of our community, and I do consider helping our police to be more effective as not only ethically permissible but as a social good, as helping the people and country. With that being said, should I be worried about the research results being tainted and unpublishable? I can certainly imagine a perspective or validation rules that could label this as "line of research that shouldn't exist" simply because it does enhance the power of police that could also be misused against the community - but, as I said, at least for our community I consider improving police capabilities as ethically permissible and even desirable and see no need to import the "government is a threat to us" mentality from places which do have this (sad) problem. Perhaps the example in the original article about an NSA booth at NeurIPS conference is relevant - like it or not, the voters generally have supported the concept that NSA should exist and should get funded, that their mission in general is ethically justified and necessary. While it has had specific projects and actions that are arguably unethical, it does not mean that it's reasonable to label everyone working for NSA as unethical and treat helping NSA as taboo - the society apparently considers NSA as a whole as net positive, and there is no serious push with widespread support to dismantle it and its functions. Similar arguments apply to military (is it ethical to be a soldier, to train to more effectively kill people at the service of your country?) and arms development. There's also the potential asymmetry of location - perhaps you might consider it ethical for a USA citizen to work for NSA and unethical for them to work for Russian or Chinese intelligence, and vice versa. Which ethics and whose ethics, indeed.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  > “ But I'm happy (or privileged?) to live in a place where I do trust my law enforcement to be on the side of our community,” May I ask where that is? Because it could not be any location in the US.
  - ativzzz 6y ago
    I would say that the majority of communities in the US side with law enforcement, it's minorities that struggle more with police. The police will uphold the needs of the majority (or the government, which is elected by the majority)
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      As a lifelong US resident across about 10 different states, I disagree very strongly. In mid-sized cities and large urban areas, the police are generally extremely corrupt and integrate with high level politicians and corporate interests for bribes, carrying out policing actions to serve cronyism, etc. In small towns, police typically align with small town politics and specific locals with political power, ranging from judges to attorneys to business owners. If they decide you’re on the wrong side, they’ll find reasons to harass you, use speeding tickets, littering, frivolous fines, etc. Of course this often affects underrepresented groups, but can easily affect people in the majority if they just don’t like you. Most communities see the police as a group to strictly stay away from. You hope that in a real emergency they will do their job, but more often they are just authority theater looking for a way to jam you up or exploit you. They absolutely are not good natured community members by default, and even if some specific cop is trying to do right by the community, nobody can assume that is trustworthy and everyone has to just stay away. Policing, especially the procedural mechanics of fining or arresting people, is just fundamentally broken from first principles in the US, and most police systems exploit this for corrupt gains and abuses of power. Exceptions are so rare as to be ignored and assumed irrelevant.

PeterisP 6y ago

A particular aspect of this ethical discussion is that the attitudes towards social institutions vary throughout the world, but the science is global - so any ethics criteria (or lack of them) for a conference essentially mean a "forced export" of these attitudes from one place to the rest of the world. For example, right now I personally am considering a particular ML research project in cooperation with our local police agency. I am aware that in many places around the world there is an antagonistic relationship between the local communities or the people and their police system, where helping the police can be reasonably considered unethical or even outright evil in certain areas for totalitarian regimes. But I'm happy (or privileged?) to live in a place where I do trust my law enforcement to be on the side of our community, and I do consider helping our police to be more effective as not only ethically permissible but as a social good, as helping the people and country. With that being said, should I be worried about the research results being tainted and unpublishable? I can certainly imagine a perspective or validation rules that could label this as "line of research that shouldn't exist" simply because it does enhance the power of police that could also be misused against the community - but, as I said, at least for our community I consider improving police capabilities as ethically permissible and even desirable and see no need to import the "government is a threat to us" mentality from places which do have this (sad) problem. Perhaps the example in the original article about an NSA booth at NeurIPS conference is relevant - like it or not, the voters generally have supported the concept that NSA should exist and should get funded, that their mission in general is ethically justified and necessary. While it has had specific projects and actions that are arguably unethical, it does not mean that it's reasonable to label everyone working for NSA as unethical and treat helping NSA as taboo - the society apparently considers NSA as a whole as net positive, and there is no serious push with widespread support to dismantle it and its functions. Similar arguments apply to military (is it ethical to be a soldier, to train to more effectively kill people at the service of your country?) and arms development. There's also the potential asymmetry of location - perhaps you might consider it ethical for a USA citizen to work for NSA and unethical for them to work for Russian or Chinese intelligence, and vice versa. Which ethics and whose ethics, indeed.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
> “ But I'm happy (or privileged?) to live in a place where I do trust my law enforcement to be on the side of our community,” May I ask where that is? Because it could not be any location in the US.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  I would say that the majority of communities in the US side with law enforcement, it's minorities that struggle more with police. The police will uphold the needs of the majority (or the government, which is elected by the majority)
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    As a lifelong US resident across about 10 different states, I disagree very strongly. In mid-sized cities and large urban areas, the police are generally extremely corrupt and integrate with high level politicians and corporate interests for bribes, carrying out policing actions to serve cronyism, etc. In small towns, police typically align with small town politics and specific locals with political power, ranging from judges to attorneys to business owners. If they decide you’re on the wrong side, they’ll find reasons to harass you, use speeding tickets, littering, frivolous fines, etc. Of course this often affects underrepresented groups, but can easily affect people in the majority if they just don’t like you. Most communities see the police as a group to strictly stay away from. You hope that in a real emergency they will do their job, but more often they are just authority theater looking for a way to jam you up or exploit you. They absolutely are not good natured community members by default, and even if some specific cop is trying to do right by the community, nobody can assume that is trustworthy and everyone has to just stay away. Policing, especially the procedural mechanics of fining or arresting people, is just fundamentally broken from first principles in the US, and most police systems exploit this for corrupt gains and abuses of power. Exceptions are so rare as to be ignored and assumed irrelevant.