3 ms·

Thanks for your reply. I can't speak for your past or how that affects you now, but you'll not be the first or last to be surprised by the course of their creat

Thanks for your reply. I can't speak for your past or how that affects you now, but you'll not be the first or last to be surprised by the course of their creations, I've built medical robotics for battlefield surgery that, with a minor twist, became systems for killing. Accepting that duality is part of a mature stance as a technologist. Nobody's asking you to be a futurologist and take responsibility for the sins of all your progeny. Maybe you did the right thing to not talk about your creation whose "potential downside seems to outweigh the benefits". At least you thought about it. I chose to put mine out there, blind to the future, but in good faith. Whether we are optimists or pessimists, guided by hope or fear may be just aspects of personality and not something I'd judge another for. Regardless, the maxinm "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" has never had a time to shine so brightly in. But that's not what I'm talking about. > I'm not saying that we should abdicate all responsibility No, you don't get to abdicate _any_ responsibility, and that's nothing to do with hubris. The second Kantian postulate, less well known than the categorical imperative or golden rule is that we must always act as if we are moral agents. You don't get to have the hubris of being a creator without the commensurate hubris of bearing responsibility. Hubris it may be (because some would argue that we create nothing that isn't given to us by <deity>). But calling it that doesn't get you off the hook. > Thinking carefully about and being good stewards of our creations presupposes that we can predict their effects Not at all. That would indeed be hubris. Being a good parent does not presuppose I know every future action of my child, Being a good/moral parent merely requires that I take close interest, and act with proper love/attention to their development.

carapace 5y ago
> Thanks for your reply. Likewise. :) > I've built medical robotics for battlefield surgery that, with a minor twist, became systems for killing. That's the sort of thing I mean. Something like that would haunt me. > Accepting that duality is part of a mature stance as a technologist. Maturity or a Faustian bargain? It may be that one can't prevent the misuse of a technology, but does it follow that you have to be the one to invent it? > Nobody's asking you to be a futurologist and take responsibility for the sins of all your progeny. Not to be cheeky but I am. I'll circle back to this in a sec... > Whether we are optimists or pessimists, guided by hope or fear may be just aspects of personality and not something I'd judge another for. Same here, well said. Since I'm kinda saying that we can't know the ultimate effects of our inventions, it would be contradictory for me to insist that I could know the ultimate effects of your inventions, for good or ill. FWIW, I hope they are good on the balance. To some extent I'm a coward, perhaps, for not being more willing to inflict my creativity upon the world. Not a happy thought, but not unfamiliar. In re: responsibility, you say, > Nobody's asking you to be a futurologist and take responsibility for the sins of all your progeny. but then later you say, > you don't get to abdicate _any_ responsibility, ... You don't get to [be] a creator without ... bearing responsibility. (I hope my crude edits don't offend you, I tried to preserve your meaning.) Right or wrong, I (would) feel responsible for the misuse of technology I invented. It seems to me that you can only be a good steward to the extent that you can foresee and avoid difficulties > Being a good parent does not presuppose I know every future action of my child, Being a good/moral parent merely requires that I take close interest, and act with proper love/attention to their development. Becoming a parent is incredible hubris, excused only by the fact that you're the descendant of four billion years of successful parenting. When you're inventing new technology it's a different story. With a kid it's pretty unlikely you're going to give birth to the next Hitler, eh? (sorry about the Godwin's law tick)
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  Cool. really appreciate the exchange. I actually think you hold yourself to a very high standard. If the thing I said about never getting to abrogate responsibility seems harsh that's because Kant is considered an impossible moral standard. But in a funny way it absolves you of some moral labour, because you __must_ :) We may be talking at cross purposes a bit, between academic moral principles (like those of Kant, Petit, Mill and so on... which I don't expect everyone to magically know) and more pragmatic day-to-day ethics that I presume we all aspire to. People have tried to post-facto control the uses of their work, for example using "no military use" licences. But these seem to be a weak instrument. By the way, I did go into the robotics gig with eyes wide open, knowing it was a military/defence-funded project. good wishes.
  - carapace 5y ago
    > Cool. really appreciate the exchange. Me too. > By the way, I did go into the robotics gig with eyes wide open, knowing it was a military/defence-funded project. FWIW, I should admit that I both envy and admire you for it. Cheers, well met.

carapace 5y ago

> Thanks for your reply. Likewise. :) > I've built medical robotics for battlefield surgery that, with a minor twist, became systems for killing. That's the sort of thing I mean. Something like that would haunt me. > Accepting that duality is part of a mature stance as a technologist. Maturity or a Faustian bargain? It may be that one can't prevent the misuse of a technology, but does it follow that you have to be the one to invent it? > Nobody's asking you to be a futurologist and take responsibility for the sins of all your progeny. Not to be cheeky but I am. I'll circle back to this in a sec... > Whether we are optimists or pessimists, guided by hope or fear may be just aspects of personality and not something I'd judge another for. Same here, well said. Since I'm kinda saying that we can't know the ultimate effects of our inventions, it would be contradictory for me to insist that I could know the ultimate effects of your inventions, for good or ill. FWIW, I hope they are good on the balance. To some extent I'm a coward, perhaps, for not being more willing to inflict my creativity upon the world. Not a happy thought, but not unfamiliar. In re: responsibility, you say, > Nobody's asking you to be a futurologist and take responsibility for the sins of all your progeny. but then later you say, > you don't get to abdicate _any_ responsibility, ... You don't get to [be] a creator without ... bearing responsibility. (I hope my crude edits don't offend you, I tried to preserve your meaning.) Right or wrong, I (would) feel responsible for the misuse of technology I invented. It seems to me that you can only be a good steward to the extent that you can foresee and avoid difficulties > Being a good parent does not presuppose I know every future action of my child, Being a good/moral parent merely requires that I take close interest, and act with proper love/attention to their development. Becoming a parent is incredible hubris, excused only by the fact that you're the descendant of four billion years of successful parenting. When you're inventing new technology it's a different story. With a kid it's pretty unlikely you're going to give birth to the next Hitler, eh? (sorry about the Godwin's law tick)

nonrandomstring 5y ago
Cool. really appreciate the exchange. I actually think you hold yourself to a very high standard. If the thing I said about never getting to abrogate responsibility seems harsh that's because Kant is considered an impossible moral standard. But in a funny way it absolves you of some moral labour, because you __must_ :) We may be talking at cross purposes a bit, between academic moral principles (like those of Kant, Petit, Mill and so on... which I don't expect everyone to magically know) and more pragmatic day-to-day ethics that I presume we all aspire to. People have tried to post-facto control the uses of their work, for example using "no military use" licences. But these seem to be a weak instrument. By the way, I did go into the robotics gig with eyes wide open, knowing it was a military/defence-funded project. good wishes.
- carapace 5y ago
  > Cool. really appreciate the exchange. Me too. > By the way, I did go into the robotics gig with eyes wide open, knowing it was a military/defence-funded project. FWIW, I should admit that I both envy and admire you for it. Cheers, well met.