4 ms·

> As an engineer, you are responsible for your inventions. Disagree. Feel free to design whatever you want. The person actually building and putting it to use

by spurgu 4y ago

> As an engineer, you are responsible for your inventions. Disagree. Feel free to design whatever you want. The person actually building and putting it to use would be the one at fault.

dragontamer 4y ago
> Feel free to design whatever you want. Yes. And if you design a racist bridge designed to keep black people out of a neighborhood, you're either helping racists, or are racist yourself. Feel free to be whatever you want, but accept that if you make racist decisions it makes you a racist.
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
  but you don't understand! I didn't create my face tracking software for surveillant capitalism!
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    I'm not racist! I just chose to work under racist bosses, do what the racist bosses say, and build / design things that those racist bosses liked! Now replace "racism" with whatever other adjective is out there (face-tracking software, guns, etc. etc.) and its really the same thing. We engineers must ethically agree with the things we make, and their expected use. Its one thing if maybe our boss uses the device in a way we didn't expect. But on the other hand, Oppenheimer knew damn well what he was making. The people we support and work for are ethically and morally tied to us engineers. They can only do the things they want with our support. And we are tied with them, since their use of our inventions is actually quite predictable in most situations.
    - jl6 4y ago
      This sort of moral principle is easy to apply in extreme scenarios, but most decisions are not so clear cut: a lot of engineers don’t have complete agency in choosing where they work, and a lot of engineers work on dual-use technology with plausible ethical use. As an example, if we assume Facebook is 100% evil (debatable but let’s go with it), then did the developers of React act unethically because their work furthered Facebook’s goals, or ethically because React is morally neutral (or even positive, as Free software) and it was other engineers who put it to evil uses? And furthermore, even nuclear bombs had a plausible ethical use (end the war sooner).
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        How hard is it for a React.js developer to find a new job elsewhere? If Facebook is 100% evil, then it behooves the workers to work for a less evil company, at a minimum. Of course, Facebook itself isn't 100% evil so things break down in your example. If you're a React.js developer and you're worried about internet privacy, intrusive ad-tech being used to track people (etc. etc.), then maybe... just maybe... you should find something else to work on in a company that matches your ethics better.
        spurgu 4y ago
        Only siths deal in extremes. No company is 100% evil. But given you are the guy who brought up the "racist bridge" analogy I'm not surprised.
        g42gregory 4y ago
        Just point out that the siths don't exist and we are not in the Hollywood movie. The reason I wanted to point this out is that Hollywood provides an extremely distorted view on the society and a lot of people are using it as reference frame as if it's something real. Having said that, I agree with the poster that no company is 100% evil. It's a good point.
      - matkoniecz 4y ago
        > And furthermore, even nuclear bombs had a plausible ethical use (end the war sooner). Some things have no real ethical use. At least in some cases inventors are unethical to invent some things.
        jl6 4y ago
        Sure, and those are what I think are the extreme scenarios. What I’m saying is that nearly all scenarios are not so extreme and not so easy to judge.
        matkoniecz 4y ago
rolph 4y ago
An engineer takes an oath similar to the hippocratic [do no harm] [ I am an Engineer. In my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn obligations. As an engineer, I, (full name), pledge to practice Integrity and Fair Dealing, Tolerance, and Respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making best use of the Earth's precious wealth. As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good. In the performance of duty, and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.]
- thatguy27 4y ago
  Well, some engineers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer. Looks like there are similar associations in other countries.
kube-system 4y ago
Strong disagree. If you build a bridge with a safety factor of 0.00001 and people die, it is your fault. The deaths as a result of those actions are predictable.
- spurgu 4y ago
  So you're saying the engineer who designed it is innocent and the manager who actually put the trainwreck into production is to blame? If so then I agree with you completely. Ideas require free flow of ideas, concepts, experiments. If the bridge happens to be "racist" (what a dumb example) then so what. Let the person you pitch it to (if you get that far) point it out and go from there. If it passes initial examination and goes as far as to actually getting built, I'm way past washing my hands off any guilt. Edit: And your example is equally weird. Who in their right mind would ever design a bridge that was 0.001% safe? There are a ton of people up the chain who make way dumber (and "RACIST") decisions if they go ahead and build the contraption.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
matkoniecz 4y ago
Someone who invented and designed gas chambers in Auschwitz concentration camp is partially blameworthy for their use. (less if they were forced/unaware or there are somehow other mitigating reasons) The same goes for other designer of things that could be clearly put into primarily or only bad use.
throwaway892238 4y ago
Comparatively few German soldiers were stationed at the Holocaust death camps. The people working on the railroads didn't kill the Jews. The people processing Jewish identities to build lists of people to pick up didn't kill them. The neighbors who reported the Jews didn't kill them. The statisticians who calculated how many people could be killed per month, and how to transport them all efficiently, didn't kill them. The chemists who sold Zyklon B to the SS for use on humans didn't kill them. Somebody else would have done the same thing anyway. If you agree with the above statement, then the basic rationalization of "I didn't directly do it, therefore I am innocent" holds. But if you disagree with the above statement, you acknowledge that simply not being the person who "pulls the trigger" does not absolve you of doing the work leading up to it. Or put another way: "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to design their death camps."

by spurgu 4y ago

> As an engineer, you are responsible for your inventions. Disagree. Feel free to design whatever you want. The person actually building and putting it to use would be the one at fault.

dragontamer 4y ago

> Feel free to design whatever you want. Yes. And if you design a racist bridge designed to keep black people out of a neighborhood, you're either helping racists, or are racist yourself. Feel free to be whatever you want, but accept that if you make racist decisions it makes you a racist.

bobkazamakis 4y ago
but you don't understand! I didn't create my face tracking software for surveillant capitalism!
- dragontamer 4y ago
  I'm not racist! I just chose to work under racist bosses, do what the racist bosses say, and build / design things that those racist bosses liked! Now replace "racism" with whatever other adjective is out there (face-tracking software, guns, etc. etc.) and its really the same thing. We engineers must ethically agree with the things we make, and their expected use. Its one thing if maybe our boss uses the device in a way we didn't expect. But on the other hand, Oppenheimer knew damn well what he was making. The people we support and work for are ethically and morally tied to us engineers. They can only do the things they want with our support. And we are tied with them, since their use of our inventions is actually quite predictable in most situations.
  - jl6 4y ago
    This sort of moral principle is easy to apply in extreme scenarios, but most decisions are not so clear cut: a lot of engineers don’t have complete agency in choosing where they work, and a lot of engineers work on dual-use technology with plausible ethical use. As an example, if we assume Facebook is 100% evil (debatable but let’s go with it), then did the developers of React act unethically because their work furthered Facebook’s goals, or ethically because React is morally neutral (or even positive, as Free software) and it was other engineers who put it to evil uses? And furthermore, even nuclear bombs had a plausible ethical use (end the war sooner).
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      How hard is it for a React.js developer to find a new job elsewhere? If Facebook is 100% evil, then it behooves the workers to work for a less evil company, at a minimum. Of course, Facebook itself isn't 100% evil so things break down in your example. If you're a React.js developer and you're worried about internet privacy, intrusive ad-tech being used to track people (etc. etc.), then maybe... just maybe... you should find something else to work on in a company that matches your ethics better.
      - spurgu 4y ago
        Only siths deal in extremes. No company is 100% evil. But given you are the guy who brought up the "racist bridge" analogy I'm not surprised.
        g42gregory 4y ago
        Just point out that the siths don't exist and we are not in the Hollywood movie. The reason I wanted to point this out is that Hollywood provides an extremely distorted view on the society and a lot of people are using it as reference frame as if it's something real. Having said that, I agree with the poster that no company is 100% evil. It's a good point.
    - matkoniecz 4y ago
      > And furthermore, even nuclear bombs had a plausible ethical use (end the war sooner). Some things have no real ethical use. At least in some cases inventors are unethical to invent some things.
      - jl6 4y ago
        Sure, and those are what I think are the extreme scenarios. What I’m saying is that nearly all scenarios are not so extreme and not so easy to judge.
        matkoniecz 4y ago

rolph 4y ago

An engineer takes an oath similar to the hippocratic [do no harm] [ I am an Engineer. In my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn obligations. As an engineer, I, (full name), pledge to practice Integrity and Fair Dealing, Tolerance, and Respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making best use of the Earth's precious wealth. As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good. In the performance of duty, and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.]

thatguy27 4y ago
Well, some engineers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer. Looks like there are similar associations in other countries.

kube-system 4y ago

Strong disagree. If you build a bridge with a safety factor of 0.00001 and people die, it is your fault. The deaths as a result of those actions are predictable.

spurgu 4y ago
So you're saying the engineer who designed it is innocent and the manager who actually put the trainwreck into production is to blame? If so then I agree with you completely. Ideas require free flow of ideas, concepts, experiments. If the bridge happens to be "racist" (what a dumb example) then so what. Let the person you pitch it to (if you get that far) point it out and go from there. If it passes initial examination and goes as far as to actually getting built, I'm way past washing my hands off any guilt. Edit: And your example is equally weird. Who in their right mind would ever design a bridge that was 0.001% safe? There are a ton of people up the chain who make way dumber (and "RACIST") decisions if they go ahead and build the contraption.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

matkoniecz 4y ago

Someone who invented and designed gas chambers in Auschwitz concentration camp is partially blameworthy for their use. (less if they were forced/unaware or there are somehow other mitigating reasons) The same goes for other designer of things that could be clearly put into primarily or only bad use.

throwaway892238 4y ago

Comparatively few German soldiers were stationed at the Holocaust death camps. The people working on the railroads didn't kill the Jews. The people processing Jewish identities to build lists of people to pick up didn't kill them. The neighbors who reported the Jews didn't kill them. The statisticians who calculated how many people could be killed per month, and how to transport them all efficiently, didn't kill them. The chemists who sold Zyklon B to the SS for use on humans didn't kill them. Somebody else would have done the same thing anyway. If you agree with the above statement, then the basic rationalization of "I didn't directly do it, therefore I am innocent" holds. But if you disagree with the above statement, you acknowledge that simply not being the person who "pulls the trigger" does not absolve you of doing the work leading up to it. Or put another way: "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to design their death camps."