5 ms·

Software Development Ethics

57 points by zdw 4y ago

slindsey 3y ago
ACM code of ethics and a discussion about it below. Otherwise a good general article. We (developer related jobs) need to be able to push back. But then again, some people just don't care, as long as they get paid. I still think a guild, union, or some similar organization is necessary. https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-code/ https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-c... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32783007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32783007
_ktx2 3y ago
I don't normally comment on articles that I don't like, but this is just awful. It diverges so far away from ethics that it's practically someones moral musings. For instance: > So, for in-house batch jobs, they are started and stopped by operations personnel. Someone also has to explicitly schedule them to run at a frequency. Those people are the ones that ‘operate’ the software and provide it as a service for the users. They are on the hook for it, so they need to be able to control it. I used to be one of these folks. I now write operational software that operates other software, but I was the guy pushing the button. For one, if you're the button pusher you probably know very little about what the code actually does. You're often more familiar with how it behaves on a system, some high level KTLO metrics, and some basic runbooks. To shove all of the responsibility for software outcomes on them is problematic to say the least. Historically, Ops folks are also some of the least paid people in tech, aside from analysts and the position is largely outsourced these days. People like this should not write or participate in ethical codes. Ethical codes are high level frameworks that involve processes for reporting violations, not some rigid structure on how "everything needs to be done this way". They'll provide criteria to abide by that helps readers ensure they are following the system. I work in a lot of highly regulated industries that involve governments; the code for how to treat government workers and adjacency is just that and necessarily that. The reason is that corruption is not black and white, you can't just name off familial relationships and hope you've covered everything. Instead you have to refer to things like undue influence. You also can't just name off "gifts"; for instance, if the company comps something due to a bad experience is that a "gift"? Of course not, but a sufficiently rigorous ethical code would make a world where refunds were controversial. All of these things also come with a responsibility to document your tracks and operate in the clear. The minute you stop operating in the clear you might not be charged with a crime, depending on what a reviewing committee can uncover, but you'll certainly be out of a job. For this, I think something like the IEEE should be building a code of ethics for software. They have the acumen and are industry-aware enough to sort through various contexts and make sure the code is verbose yet light enough to stand the test of time without incurring prohibition style statements like, "let's bring back operators".
booleandilemma 3y ago
It's just wishful thinking. The way the industry is, if you won't do the job, your boss will just find someone else who will. And they'll probably be paid lower too.
- edrxty 3y ago
  I think the goal is to make sure that there isn't a ton of available talent for evil projects. Obviously there are assholes who will happily build slaughter bots for a comfy lifestyle but if we minimize that pool, the economy as a whole will have a hard time getting enough people to build every evil project that anyone comes up with.
  - kazinator 3y ago
    > make sure that there isn't a ton of available talent for evil projects AI will address that. Smaller talent can write more via prompt-drive code generation and refactoring; it just has to check that it's not garbage. > assholes who will happily build slaughter bots Chances are you live in a country that owns fleets of machines which fit that description, out of the taxes that you pay, under the direction of the government you elected.
    - mitt_romney_12 3y ago
      > Chances are you live in a country that owns fleets of machines which fit that description, out of the taxes that you pay, under the direction of the government you elected. I don't think that "We already make slaughterbots" is a good argument for why someone should build slaughterbots. Just because we do it doesn't mean it's a good thing
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  I'm not aware of any industry where doing the job you're hired for is optional.
  - KirillPanov 3y ago
byteCoder 3y ago
My son just graduated from Northeastern University's Khoury College of Computer Sciences. At his Khoury College graduation celebration a week ago, this is the first time that the following oath was recited by the graduating class: KHOURY COLLEGE OATH FOR COMPUTING Today, I join the ranks of computer scientists worldwide. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings. I will design and build computing systems that enhance the quality of daily life for individuals and for society. I will protect the dignity of users and others affected by computing systems, respecting the diversity of all cultures, and safeguarding against threats to health and safety. I will respect the privacy and rights of all people and recognize the special role I have in judiciously collecting, storing and using their information, and creating systems that aim to shape their behavior. I will work for fair wages; honorably guarding my reputation and my colleagues in our work practices, while respecting the intellectual contributions of others. I will improve the public understanding of computing and its consequences. May I always act to preserve the finest traditions of my field, and may I long experience the joy of inventing the future through my endeavors.
- byteCoder 3y ago
  Here's a link to it: https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/about/dean-elizabeth-mynatt/#:~:text=Khoury%20College%20Oath%20for%20Computing&text=I%20will%20protect%20the%20dignity,threats%20to%20health%20and%20safety https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/about/dean-elizabeth-myn....
- spaced-out 3y ago
  >I will work for fair wages; honorably guarding my reputation and my colleagues in our work practices, while respecting the intellectual contributions of others. What does this mean? What's an example of an unfair wage?
  - loa_in_ 3y ago
    You can work for $1000 and it might be fair. But if you see your colleague doing as much as you do and more for $600 then neither of you is working for a fair wage.
fwlr 3y ago
“ Basically, it is a commitment that we will not build evil things for evil people. ” What about building evil things for good people? Building good things for evil people? Who gets to write the source code of the `isEvil(foo)` function, and can I fork it if I disagree? The section on automation seems deeply confused; first it says that automation must always be manually triggered by the people involved, then in the next sentence it provides guidance on scheduling cron jobs, which would seem to be ruled out by the manual triggering rule. Signing up users to an email list automatically and without a way for them to remove themselves is presented as an example of the kind of evil automation this would prevent, and I agree it should be prevented as I don’t like that either, but it goes on to demonstrate that the proposed rule also inhibits things I think are okay, like if I authenticate with TouchID I want my Mac to sign in with whatever credentials it has at its disposal. The second section on never lying to or tricking users is similarly deeply flawed; it is motivated again by a good example of disallowing unreadable EULAs that sign away personal data, but again goes on to demonstrate its own overbroadness - which reaches so far that it absurdly claims that not solving the cache invalidation problem is a moral violation. The third section is somehow worse still; in trying to make a developer ethically liable for anything anyone does with their code, it positions itself at odds with several of the most common and venerable open sources licenses that vast chunks of software have been built on and released under. Aside from the fact that this is simply unworkable on a level even Stallman would balk at, “opposing some of the most common licenses” should have clued in the author that their document does not align with most software developer moral codes.
- austin-cheney 3y ago
  Discussions of software and ethics are often painful, because the mere concept of ethics is so utterly foreign and unknown to software as an industry. Ethics is not about right versus wrong. That is morality. So for this conversation it does not matter if a given software is evil, a given client is evil, or if anybody cares that any of these are evil. Evil is irrelevant and highly subjective. Ethics is about conformance to rules that govern practice and behavior. In industries that observe ethics the violations of such rules don't just mean you get fired. It means you can never do that job for anybody ever again. The goal is to ensure that people practicing in a given field of work prioritize the quality of work above that of profit or employer demands.
forshadowing_ 3y ago
[dead]
commandlinefan 3y ago
> not make it easy for lies and hate speech Lawyers have an actual defined code of ethics that they have to follow or they loser their license, defined by people whose job it is to make rules. Even theirs isn't this draconian. I'm pretty sure I don't want to be bound by somebody else's code of ethics and I know I don't want to be bound by this guy's.
kazinator 3y ago
> So we, as software developers, need an ethical code. We do? Says who? Why don't people who make hunting rifles or kitchen knives need this ethical code? Cars can run over people on purpose; why do auto makers not need an ethical code about that, only about safety? OK, let's step away from the strawman and discuss only software whose only conceivable use is killing people. Is that automatically evil, though? Say that your country is at war and your government orders you to write such a thing. If you don't you could be tried as a traitor.
- dcow 3y ago
  Under this complete nonsense of an attempt at spitting out words remotely related to ethics, if the author's argument were to be applied to other industries, then car manufacturers would be culpable for people running a car into a street parade, and thus shouldn't build cars.
  - rileymat2 3y ago
    The professional engineers that produce many part of the car do have ethics. https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
    - kazinator 3y ago
      The professional engineers who produce many parts of a car do not have ethics which oblige them to act if someone obtains such a part and adapts it to a nefarious purpose. An automotive engineer doesn't lose sleep at night over the idea that someone might sharpen a piece of a chrome fender using a grinding wheel, and then use it to cut someone's throat. Or strangle someone with a fan belt. That's exactly what this blog is asserting though.
      - mitt_romney_12 3y ago
        That's not what the blog author is saying at all. What the author describes in the article aren't products being misused they are products that are explicitly designed to be harmful. A better analogy would be that engineers should refuse to help remove safety features to make a car cheaper.
SamuelAdams 3y ago
(Unpopular opinion): I feel like ethics are made up laws that people try to enforce when they're just jealous someone else did something first. If something is actually a problem for citizens, ask your legislators to make a law encompassing fair use and other compliance standards. Don't just make up new ethical rules and pretend barriers because you're jealous. If you thought of and executed ChatGPT, or Tindr, or Facebook, before their creators, would you still have the same "ethical" views that you claim should be followed? Also reading through the article, some of the author's propositions are insane. For example: > So, for in-house batch jobs, they are started and stopped by operations personnel No, the whole point of some of our work is to increase automation and reduce opex costs, so that companies don't need to hire people because people are expensive and risky. > Second, a computer should never lie or trick the users This requires users to be informed on what their device is doing. How many people actually read the terms and conditions of the services they use? If they can't even be bothered to read that, what's to say they're going to read another long, boring document that explains what every feature of your app does so they cannot claim they were "tricked"? Sure dark patterns are not very fantastic - we can absolutely address those. But creating an informed user-base is very challenging.
- kazinator 3y ago
  > If you thought of and executed ChatGPT, or Tindr, or Facebook, before their creators, would you still have the same "ethical" views that you claim should be followed? Publicly, the purveyors of all of the above purport to have ethics. OpenAI's models have safeguards in them against discussing some topics and providing certain information. I suspect it's just a social survival strategy for these companies, nothing more; not an actual commitment to ethics.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    I assert that "commitment to ethics" is an empty statement without a specific set of ethics guidelines. I also assert ethics are always a "social survival strategy" and that isn't meant to besmirch the value of ethics.
    - 3y ago
dcow 3y ago
Considering this was published on 4/20, I have to assume the author was way beyond even unintelligibly high when they wrote this. Ethics in software is a super interesting topic! Sadly, this piece does absolutely nothing to advance the dialog and reads like it's written by someone who spent less than 20 seconds thinking about the topic, who made absolutely no attempt to include prior art, before barfing up the unoriginal and completely passé idea that tool builders should be culpable for how people choose to use their tools, as if anybody actually has the authority or power to restrain downstream use cases of the free expression of ideas (as they pertain to programming machines) in a practical and meaningful way. Oh and BTW software automation is unethical, because, gah whothefuckcares why am I even responding to this piece...
thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
"It is unethical unless your library is in opposition to some other oppression." One person's 'freedom fighter' is another person's terrorist. These ethics guidelines strike me as well-intentioned, but naïve. "If you write something innocent and later find out that it is being used for evil, you are now obligated to do something about that. You can’t ignore it or say you didn't know. You are now stuck and have to do your best to make that situation better." If you create a library and a state-sponsored hacking group uses it, what are you expected to do? Call them out? It is not like other users of your library would associate you with the hacking group. Anytime a general purpose tool is released a devious creative mind might find a way to use it that the original creator did not think of.
- peteradio 3y ago
  I think part of the idea is to be careful about what you put into the world in the first place. On the spectrum of [ basic utilities ---- well if I didn't write it someone else would have ] you can perhaps gain some comfort if you are towards the basic utilities? There's a know it when you see it difference between a folder navigator and analytics platform for doxxing dissidents.
  - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
    >> There's a know it when you see it difference between a folder navigator and analytics platform for doxxing dissidents. True, but tools are becoming more sophisticated and different people have different definitions. Sophisticated tools like large language models have many capabilities that their creators did not envision. Different definitions mean that one person's 'doxxing dissidents' is another person's 'fighting domestic terrorism'. Good tools are easy to repurpose for many uses and causes, both good and bad. A sword can be wielded by a knight to defend the weak and innocent and serve king and country. The same sword can brandished by a pirate to kill, plunder, and destroy. Should we ascribe the good or bad done with the sword to the swordsmith who forged it? I say 'No.' The bearer of the sword is responsible for how the sword is used.
    - 3y ago
belfalas 3y ago
I have a hunch that this article is either someone being humorous or incredible naive. To wit: > First, no matter how many instructions are executed for any type of automation, the code must always be triggered by humans. Not someone, or anyone, but the actual people involved. The author is against traffic lights? > A big part of this is that the data presented to the users must be correct, at all times. So, it must be named correctly, modeled correctly, stored correctly, cleaned correctly, and presented correctly. Stale stuff in a cache would be an ethics violation. Badly modeled data that is broken is one as well. The author would in all likelihood have to turn themselves in - and besides, who gets to decide the meaning of words like "correct" or "badly modeled"? Also, how does this work with things like eventual consistency? (Remember, reality itself is eventually consistent!) > The third part is to not enable chaos, strife, and discord. This is the hardest of the three. This is indeed hard. However, consider how far-reaching this statement is. Chaos, strife, and discord are caused by human actors with intent -- we should now include telegram (the old kind), telephone communication, physical letters, etc. I would be curious to hear the author's opinion on mass surveillance to enforce all these rules, as that would seem to be necessary if you were really going to to do this. That said, these concerns are not new. When someone creates technology, it is almost guaranteed to be abused, even if that was not the creators intent.
trunnell 3y ago
Look past the flaws of this particular code of ethics. The better question: Is it time for us to adopt some code of ethics? Many other professions have important ethical standards. Medicine, law, civil engineering, and many other fields. These standards are broadly respected by the public. Surely by this point we can all see that software is often just as critical as bridges, medicine, justice, and other public goods. Should we not hold ourselves to some standard?
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > Many other professions have important ethical standards. What is our profession? You've hit on an important point there. What? We, most of us, write code, but what industry are we part of? And there it all gets hazy. It's like defining ethics for people involved in moving vehicles or ethics for people who write text in a given language.
- sam_bristow 3y ago
  I've had a published code of ethics on my website for about 10 years. I adapted it from the WFEO model code of ethics[1] so it's not specific to software. [1] http://www.wfeo.org/wp-content/uploads/code_of_ethics/WFEO_MODEL_CODE_OF_ETHICS.pdf http://www.wfeo.org/wp-content/uploads/code_of_ethics/WFEO_M... ------ In the course of engineering practise, I will endeavour to: #Demonstrate Integrity - Refrain from fraudulent, corrupt or criminal practices Be objective and truthful - Practise fairly and with good faith towards clients, colleagues and others #Practise Competently - Practise in a careful and diligent manner in accordance with my areas of competence -Practise in accordance with accepted engineering practices, standards and codes - Maintain and strive to enhance the body of knowledge in which I practise #Exercise Leadership - Practise so as to enhance the quality of life in society - Strive to contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge within which I practise, and to the profession in general - Foster the public’s understanding of technical issues and the role of engineering #Protect the Natural and Built Environment - Create and implement engineering solutions for a sustainable future - Be mindful of the economic, societal and environmental consequences of actions or projects -Promote and protect the health, safety and well being of the community and the environment
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
drewcoo 3y ago
> like any other tool, they can also be used for evil Ok. What is this evil you speak of, person who wants me to think I'm like you? I don't get it. Define it clearly please. (No definition follows.) > So we, as software developers, need an ethical code Oh, so because of <undefined thing> we need <ethical code>? Why is that, then? Please explain all the whys. (None of the whys follow. I guess we're not so alike after all. Drat!) I believe we as a cohort, a group of similarly-titled people, a group seeking possibly similar things should have a code of ethics. I really do. But not because of no reason and "so there!" What separates most of us from actual engineers is not just an iron ring, but a code of ethics (well, nowadays, also common scholastic training - can I get a "hell yeah" from the code bootcamp folks?). Most guilds used to have those codes, in fact. And union membership is predicated on agreeing with the union's goals. And I could never quite agree with the Cub Scout oath or the twelve steps' higher power, but those serve the same purpose, too, and I admire them even when I don't agree. I think I disagree with the post's first reply, from "anonymous:" "really well written." There's not enough thought before the writing started. I think it deserves a little more of that and then probably a bunch of editing before it's worthy of a real takedown. And being worthy of a takedown is a badge of honor. (Honor being related to ethics but given ethics isn't defined, I won't bother either.)
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> We value freedom of speech, but we also need to not make it easy for lies and hate speech to propagate. When you build social networks, of any kind, both of these requirements must be in your design, and both shape the solution. You can’t pick one and ignore the other. This person doesn’t really care about freedom of speech. It is easy to define speech you disagree with as either lies or hate speech. In fact, as others have pointed out in the comments, there are a decent number of logical inconsistencies in this article and so this article has untruths and therefore lies and should be suppressed by ethical software. It also characterizes some people as“evil” which in my mind is also hate speech and should therefore be suppressed.
purgesoft 3y ago
[flagged]

57 points by zdw 4y ago

ACM code of ethics and a discussion about it below. Otherwise a good general article. We (developer related jobs) need to be able to push back. But then again, some people just don't care, as long as they get paid. I still think a guild, union, or some similar organization is necessary. https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-code/ https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-c... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32783007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32783007

_ktx2 3y ago

I don't normally comment on articles that I don't like, but this is just awful. It diverges so far away from ethics that it's practically someones moral musings. For instance: > So, for in-house batch jobs, they are started and stopped by operations personnel. Someone also has to explicitly schedule them to run at a frequency. Those people are the ones that ‘operate’ the software and provide it as a service for the users. They are on the hook for it, so they need to be able to control it. I used to be one of these folks. I now write operational software that operates other software, but I was the guy pushing the button. For one, if you're the button pusher you probably know very little about what the code actually does. You're often more familiar with how it behaves on a system, some high level KTLO metrics, and some basic runbooks. To shove all of the responsibility for software outcomes on them is problematic to say the least. Historically, Ops folks are also some of the least paid people in tech, aside from analysts and the position is largely outsourced these days. People like this should not write or participate in ethical codes. Ethical codes are high level frameworks that involve processes for reporting violations, not some rigid structure on how "everything needs to be done this way". They'll provide criteria to abide by that helps readers ensure they are following the system. I work in a lot of highly regulated industries that involve governments; the code for how to treat government workers and adjacency is just that and necessarily that. The reason is that corruption is not black and white, you can't just name off familial relationships and hope you've covered everything. Instead you have to refer to things like undue influence. You also can't just name off "gifts"; for instance, if the company comps something due to a bad experience is that a "gift"? Of course not, but a sufficiently rigorous ethical code would make a world where refunds were controversial. All of these things also come with a responsibility to document your tracks and operate in the clear. The minute you stop operating in the clear you might not be charged with a crime, depending on what a reviewing committee can uncover, but you'll certainly be out of a job. For this, I think something like the IEEE should be building a code of ethics for software. They have the acumen and are industry-aware enough to sort through various contexts and make sure the code is verbose yet light enough to stand the test of time without incurring prohibition style statements like, "let's bring back operators".

booleandilemma 3y ago

It's just wishful thinking. The way the industry is, if you won't do the job, your boss will just find someone else who will. And they'll probably be paid lower too.

edrxty 3y ago
I think the goal is to make sure that there isn't a ton of available talent for evil projects. Obviously there are assholes who will happily build slaughter bots for a comfy lifestyle but if we minimize that pool, the economy as a whole will have a hard time getting enough people to build every evil project that anyone comes up with.
- kazinator 3y ago
  > make sure that there isn't a ton of available talent for evil projects AI will address that. Smaller talent can write more via prompt-drive code generation and refactoring; it just has to check that it's not garbage. > assholes who will happily build slaughter bots Chances are you live in a country that owns fleets of machines which fit that description, out of the taxes that you pay, under the direction of the government you elected.
  - mitt_romney_12 3y ago
    > Chances are you live in a country that owns fleets of machines which fit that description, out of the taxes that you pay, under the direction of the government you elected. I don't think that "We already make slaughterbots" is a good argument for why someone should build slaughterbots. Just because we do it doesn't mean it's a good thing
BurningFrog 3y ago
I'm not aware of any industry where doing the job you're hired for is optional.
- KirillPanov 3y ago

byteCoder 3y ago

My son just graduated from Northeastern University's Khoury College of Computer Sciences. At his Khoury College graduation celebration a week ago, this is the first time that the following oath was recited by the graduating class: KHOURY COLLEGE OATH FOR COMPUTING Today, I join the ranks of computer scientists worldwide. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings. I will design and build computing systems that enhance the quality of daily life for individuals and for society. I will protect the dignity of users and others affected by computing systems, respecting the diversity of all cultures, and safeguarding against threats to health and safety. I will respect the privacy and rights of all people and recognize the special role I have in judiciously collecting, storing and using their information, and creating systems that aim to shape their behavior. I will work for fair wages; honorably guarding my reputation and my colleagues in our work practices, while respecting the intellectual contributions of others. I will improve the public understanding of computing and its consequences. May I always act to preserve the finest traditions of my field, and may I long experience the joy of inventing the future through my endeavors.

byteCoder 3y ago
Here's a link to it: https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/about/dean-elizabeth-mynatt/#:~:text=Khoury%20College%20Oath%20for%20Computing&text=I%20will%20protect%20the%20dignity,threats%20to%20health%20and%20safety https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/about/dean-elizabeth-myn....
spaced-out 3y ago
>I will work for fair wages; honorably guarding my reputation and my colleagues in our work practices, while respecting the intellectual contributions of others. What does this mean? What's an example of an unfair wage?
- loa_in_ 3y ago
  You can work for $1000 and it might be fair. But if you see your colleague doing as much as you do and more for $600 then neither of you is working for a fair wage.

fwlr 3y ago

“ Basically, it is a commitment that we will not build evil things for evil people. ” What about building evil things for good people? Building good things for evil people? Who gets to write the source code of the `isEvil(foo)` function, and can I fork it if I disagree? The section on automation seems deeply confused; first it says that automation must always be manually triggered by the people involved, then in the next sentence it provides guidance on scheduling cron jobs, which would seem to be ruled out by the manual triggering rule. Signing up users to an email list automatically and without a way for them to remove themselves is presented as an example of the kind of evil automation this would prevent, and I agree it should be prevented as I don’t like that either, but it goes on to demonstrate that the proposed rule also inhibits things I think are okay, like if I authenticate with TouchID I want my Mac to sign in with whatever credentials it has at its disposal. The second section on never lying to or tricking users is similarly deeply flawed; it is motivated again by a good example of disallowing unreadable EULAs that sign away personal data, but again goes on to demonstrate its own overbroadness - which reaches so far that it absurdly claims that not solving the cache invalidation problem is a moral violation. The third section is somehow worse still; in trying to make a developer ethically liable for anything anyone does with their code, it positions itself at odds with several of the most common and venerable open sources licenses that vast chunks of software have been built on and released under. Aside from the fact that this is simply unworkable on a level even Stallman would balk at, “opposing some of the most common licenses” should have clued in the author that their document does not align with most software developer moral codes.

austin-cheney 3y ago
Discussions of software and ethics are often painful, because the mere concept of ethics is so utterly foreign and unknown to software as an industry. Ethics is not about right versus wrong. That is morality. So for this conversation it does not matter if a given software is evil, a given client is evil, or if anybody cares that any of these are evil. Evil is irrelevant and highly subjective. Ethics is about conformance to rules that govern practice and behavior. In industries that observe ethics the violations of such rules don't just mean you get fired. It means you can never do that job for anybody ever again. The goal is to ensure that people practicing in a given field of work prioritize the quality of work above that of profit or employer demands.

forshadowing_ 3y ago

[dead]

commandlinefan 3y ago

> not make it easy for lies and hate speech Lawyers have an actual defined code of ethics that they have to follow or they loser their license, defined by people whose job it is to make rules. Even theirs isn't this draconian. I'm pretty sure I don't want to be bound by somebody else's code of ethics and I know I don't want to be bound by this guy's.

kazinator 3y ago

> So we, as software developers, need an ethical code. We do? Says who? Why don't people who make hunting rifles or kitchen knives need this ethical code? Cars can run over people on purpose; why do auto makers not need an ethical code about that, only about safety? OK, let's step away from the strawman and discuss only software whose only conceivable use is killing people. Is that automatically evil, though? Say that your country is at war and your government orders you to write such a thing. If you don't you could be tried as a traitor.

dcow 3y ago
Under this complete nonsense of an attempt at spitting out words remotely related to ethics, if the author's argument were to be applied to other industries, then car manufacturers would be culpable for people running a car into a street parade, and thus shouldn't build cars.
- rileymat2 3y ago
  The professional engineers that produce many part of the car do have ethics. https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
  - kazinator 3y ago
    The professional engineers who produce many parts of a car do not have ethics which oblige them to act if someone obtains such a part and adapts it to a nefarious purpose. An automotive engineer doesn't lose sleep at night over the idea that someone might sharpen a piece of a chrome fender using a grinding wheel, and then use it to cut someone's throat. Or strangle someone with a fan belt. That's exactly what this blog is asserting though.
    - mitt_romney_12 3y ago
      That's not what the blog author is saying at all. What the author describes in the article aren't products being misused they are products that are explicitly designed to be harmful. A better analogy would be that engineers should refuse to help remove safety features to make a car cheaper.

SamuelAdams 3y ago

(Unpopular opinion): I feel like ethics are made up laws that people try to enforce when they're just jealous someone else did something first. If something is actually a problem for citizens, ask your legislators to make a law encompassing fair use and other compliance standards. Don't just make up new ethical rules and pretend barriers because you're jealous. If you thought of and executed ChatGPT, or Tindr, or Facebook, before their creators, would you still have the same "ethical" views that you claim should be followed? Also reading through the article, some of the author's propositions are insane. For example: > So, for in-house batch jobs, they are started and stopped by operations personnel No, the whole point of some of our work is to increase automation and reduce opex costs, so that companies don't need to hire people because people are expensive and risky. > Second, a computer should never lie or trick the users This requires users to be informed on what their device is doing. How many people actually read the terms and conditions of the services they use? If they can't even be bothered to read that, what's to say they're going to read another long, boring document that explains what every feature of your app does so they cannot claim they were "tricked"? Sure dark patterns are not very fantastic - we can absolutely address those. But creating an informed user-base is very challenging.

kazinator 3y ago
> If you thought of and executed ChatGPT, or Tindr, or Facebook, before their creators, would you still have the same "ethical" views that you claim should be followed? Publicly, the purveyors of all of the above purport to have ethics. OpenAI's models have safeguards in them against discussing some topics and providing certain information. I suspect it's just a social survival strategy for these companies, nothing more; not an actual commitment to ethics.
- peteradio 3y ago
  I assert that "commitment to ethics" is an empty statement without a specific set of ethics guidelines. I also assert ethics are always a "social survival strategy" and that isn't meant to besmirch the value of ethics.
  - 3y ago

dcow 3y ago

Considering this was published on 4/20, I have to assume the author was way beyond even unintelligibly high when they wrote this. Ethics in software is a super interesting topic! Sadly, this piece does absolutely nothing to advance the dialog and reads like it's written by someone who spent less than 20 seconds thinking about the topic, who made absolutely no attempt to include prior art, before barfing up the unoriginal and completely passé idea that tool builders should be culpable for how people choose to use their tools, as if anybody actually has the authority or power to restrain downstream use cases of the free expression of ideas (as they pertain to programming machines) in a practical and meaningful way. Oh and BTW software automation is unethical, because, gah whothefuckcares why am I even responding to this piece...

thesuperbigfrog 3y ago

"It is unethical unless your library is in opposition to some other oppression." One person's 'freedom fighter' is another person's terrorist. These ethics guidelines strike me as well-intentioned, but naïve. "If you write something innocent and later find out that it is being used for evil, you are now obligated to do something about that. You can’t ignore it or say you didn't know. You are now stuck and have to do your best to make that situation better." If you create a library and a state-sponsored hacking group uses it, what are you expected to do? Call them out? It is not like other users of your library would associate you with the hacking group. Anytime a general purpose tool is released a devious creative mind might find a way to use it that the original creator did not think of.

peteradio 3y ago
I think part of the idea is to be careful about what you put into the world in the first place. On the spectrum of [ basic utilities ---- well if I didn't write it someone else would have ] you can perhaps gain some comfort if you are towards the basic utilities? There's a know it when you see it difference between a folder navigator and analytics platform for doxxing dissidents.
- thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
  >> There's a know it when you see it difference between a folder navigator and analytics platform for doxxing dissidents. True, but tools are becoming more sophisticated and different people have different definitions. Sophisticated tools like large language models have many capabilities that their creators did not envision. Different definitions mean that one person's 'doxxing dissidents' is another person's 'fighting domestic terrorism'. Good tools are easy to repurpose for many uses and causes, both good and bad. A sword can be wielded by a knight to defend the weak and innocent and serve king and country. The same sword can brandished by a pirate to kill, plunder, and destroy. Should we ascribe the good or bad done with the sword to the swordsmith who forged it? I say 'No.' The bearer of the sword is responsible for how the sword is used.
  - 3y ago

belfalas 3y ago

I have a hunch that this article is either someone being humorous or incredible naive. To wit: > First, no matter how many instructions are executed for any type of automation, the code must always be triggered by humans. Not someone, or anyone, but the actual people involved. The author is against traffic lights? > A big part of this is that the data presented to the users must be correct, at all times. So, it must be named correctly, modeled correctly, stored correctly, cleaned correctly, and presented correctly. Stale stuff in a cache would be an ethics violation. Badly modeled data that is broken is one as well. The author would in all likelihood have to turn themselves in - and besides, who gets to decide the meaning of words like "correct" or "badly modeled"? Also, how does this work with things like eventual consistency? (Remember, reality itself is eventually consistent!) > The third part is to not enable chaos, strife, and discord. This is the hardest of the three. This is indeed hard. However, consider how far-reaching this statement is. Chaos, strife, and discord are caused by human actors with intent -- we should now include telegram (the old kind), telephone communication, physical letters, etc. I would be curious to hear the author's opinion on mass surveillance to enforce all these rules, as that would seem to be necessary if you were really going to to do this. That said, these concerns are not new. When someone creates technology, it is almost guaranteed to be abused, even if that was not the creators intent.

trunnell 3y ago

Look past the flaws of this particular code of ethics. The better question: Is it time for us to adopt some code of ethics? Many other professions have important ethical standards. Medicine, law, civil engineering, and many other fields. These standards are broadly respected by the public. Surely by this point we can all see that software is often just as critical as bridges, medicine, justice, and other public goods. Should we not hold ourselves to some standard?

drewcoo 3y ago
> Many other professions have important ethical standards. What is our profession? You've hit on an important point there. What? We, most of us, write code, but what industry are we part of? And there it all gets hazy. It's like defining ethics for people involved in moving vehicles or ethics for people who write text in a given language.
sam_bristow 3y ago
I've had a published code of ethics on my website for about 10 years. I adapted it from the WFEO model code of ethics[1] so it's not specific to software. [1] http://www.wfeo.org/wp-content/uploads/code_of_ethics/WFEO_MODEL_CODE_OF_ETHICS.pdf http://www.wfeo.org/wp-content/uploads/code_of_ethics/WFEO_M... ------ In the course of engineering practise, I will endeavour to: #Demonstrate Integrity - Refrain from fraudulent, corrupt or criminal practices Be objective and truthful - Practise fairly and with good faith towards clients, colleagues and others #Practise Competently - Practise in a careful and diligent manner in accordance with my areas of competence -Practise in accordance with accepted engineering practices, standards and codes - Maintain and strive to enhance the body of knowledge in which I practise #Exercise Leadership - Practise so as to enhance the quality of life in society - Strive to contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge within which I practise, and to the profession in general - Foster the public’s understanding of technical issues and the role of engineering #Protect the Natural and Built Environment - Create and implement engineering solutions for a sustainable future - Be mindful of the economic, societal and environmental consequences of actions or projects -Promote and protect the health, safety and well being of the community and the environment

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

drewcoo 3y ago

> like any other tool, they can also be used for evil Ok. What is this evil you speak of, person who wants me to think I'm like you? I don't get it. Define it clearly please. (No definition follows.) > So we, as software developers, need an ethical code Oh, so because of <undefined thing> we need <ethical code>? Why is that, then? Please explain all the whys. (None of the whys follow. I guess we're not so alike after all. Drat!) I believe we as a cohort, a group of similarly-titled people, a group seeking possibly similar things should have a code of ethics. I really do. But not because of no reason and "so there!" What separates most of us from actual engineers is not just an iron ring, but a code of ethics (well, nowadays, also common scholastic training - can I get a "hell yeah" from the code bootcamp folks?). Most guilds used to have those codes, in fact. And union membership is predicated on agreeing with the union's goals. And I could never quite agree with the Cub Scout oath or the twelve steps' higher power, but those serve the same purpose, too, and I admire them even when I don't agree. I think I disagree with the post's first reply, from "anonymous:" "really well written." There's not enough thought before the writing started. I think it deserves a little more of that and then probably a bunch of editing before it's worthy of a real takedown. And being worthy of a takedown is a badge of honor. (Honor being related to ethics but given ethics isn't defined, I won't bother either.)

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

> We value freedom of speech, but we also need to not make it easy for lies and hate speech to propagate. When you build social networks, of any kind, both of these requirements must be in your design, and both shape the solution. You can’t pick one and ignore the other. This person doesn’t really care about freedom of speech. It is easy to define speech you disagree with as either lies or hate speech. In fact, as others have pointed out in the comments, there are a decent number of logical inconsistencies in this article and so this article has untruths and therefore lies and should be suppressed by ethical software. It also characterizes some people as“evil” which in my mind is also hate speech and should therefore be suppressed.

purgesoft 3y ago

[flagged]