43 ms·

I like the concept in theory, but I don't think's workable in the real world, because for the tricky edge cases (which are exactly why you'd want a code of ethi

I like the concept in theory, but I don't think's workable in the real world, because for the tricky edge cases (which are exactly why you'd want a code of ethics to begin with), nobody agrees on what is and is not ethical. Is working for a defense contractor to build smart bombs and killer drones unethical? A bunch of people think so, but there are also a bunch of people who think we need these things to defend ourselves and come to the aid of e.g. Ukraine. The same goes for facial recognition (does it destroy privacy or help catch criminals and bring them to justice?), cryptocurrency (does it enable crime and uselessly waste heaps of power or help people subvert government tyranny?), high-frequency trading (does it enrich Wall Street by picking the pockets of individual traders or provide liquidity to the market?), ad tracking (is it an invasion of privacy or is it enabling people to get useful services for free?), and so on for almost any application you can name which might theoretically be prevented by a code of ethics. Ethics are way too individual for this approach to be at all useful. A professional code of ethics either has to be so vague that anyone can interpret it however they want, or so specific that half the people who would be covered will disagree and ignore it.

jrumbut 3y ago
I completely disagree. A lot of people out there are doing things that they know are wrong but think that because they have a boss they no longer own the responsibility of behaving ethically. Check out all the testimony in the FTX trial for examples of this.
sgift 3y ago
Since you've brought up drones and smart bombs: What constitutes a war crime is a highly ethical and contentious issue with many people disagreeing on the exact scope. Yet, we've managed to write laws about it and get court decisions. Even if we want to, some things in life cannot be neatly packed into correct/incorrect categories. And the process alone of discussing whether smart bombs and killer drones should be build is helpful in shaping decisions on how exactly they will be build or not.
jltsiren 3y ago
A code of ethics is just a starting point for asking the right questions. It's not supposed to provide answers. You mentioned some controversial technologies that have potential both for good and for ill. When you work on technologies like that, there is always a risk that your contribution to the society will be net negative. That the world would have been a better place without you. Is that a legacy you want? Some of those technologies are a necessary evil. There will always be weapons of war, and there will always be people developing them. If you choose to make a career in such technologies, you should keep asking yourself the right questions. What are the specific choices your company is making, and are they making the technology better or worse for the society? Which choices are you personally advocating for? What is the actual impact of the technology you are developing in the field? Do you have faith in the leadership of the company and in the choices they are making? Should you continue at your job or quit? You have some rights as a citizen of a free country. Those rights are balanced by responsibilities, because the government ultimately receives its powers from citizens like you. As a professional, your choices likely have more impact on the society than the average citizen. You should therefore take your responsibilities more seriously as well.

jrumbut 3y ago

I completely disagree. A lot of people out there are doing things that they know are wrong but think that because they have a boss they no longer own the responsibility of behaving ethically. Check out all the testimony in the FTX trial for examples of this.

sgift 3y ago

Since you've brought up drones and smart bombs: What constitutes a war crime is a highly ethical and contentious issue with many people disagreeing on the exact scope. Yet, we've managed to write laws about it and get court decisions. Even if we want to, some things in life cannot be neatly packed into correct/incorrect categories. And the process alone of discussing whether smart bombs and killer drones should be build is helpful in shaping decisions on how exactly they will be build or not.

jltsiren 3y ago

A code of ethics is just a starting point for asking the right questions. It's not supposed to provide answers. You mentioned some controversial technologies that have potential both for good and for ill. When you work on technologies like that, there is always a risk that your contribution to the society will be net negative. That the world would have been a better place without you. Is that a legacy you want? Some of those technologies are a necessary evil. There will always be weapons of war, and there will always be people developing them. If you choose to make a career in such technologies, you should keep asking yourself the right questions. What are the specific choices your company is making, and are they making the technology better or worse for the society? Which choices are you personally advocating for? What is the actual impact of the technology you are developing in the field? Do you have faith in the leadership of the company and in the choices they are making? Should you continue at your job or quit? You have some rights as a citizen of a free country. Those rights are balanced by responsibilities, because the government ultimately receives its powers from citizens like you. As a professional, your choices likely have more impact on the society than the average citizen. You should therefore take your responsibilities more seriously as well.