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 t

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.