7 ms·

Around 10 years ago, in college, in Calculus class I had a very ambitious classmate, wanted to go to DARPA and work on Robotics. I asked if he was thinking it t

by agigao 7mo ago

Around 10 years ago, in college, in Calculus class I had a very ambitious classmate, wanted to go to DARPA and work on Robotics. I asked if he was thinking it through solely from technical perspective or considering ethics side as well. Clearly, he didn't understand the question and I directly inquired - what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing? His response - that's not my problem. After spending couple of years studying in the US, I came to conclusion that executives and board members in industry doesn't care about society or humans, even universities don't push students towards critical thinking and ethics, and all has turned into a vocational training, turning humans into crafting tools. The same time, at Harvard, I attended VR innovation week and the last panel discussion of the day was Ethics and Law, which was discussed by Law Professor, a journalist and a moderator and was attended a handful of people. I inquired why founders, CEOs or developers weren't in part of the discussion or in attendance? Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion. The discussion basically was - how product companies build affects the society? Laws aren't founders problem, that's what lawyers are for, and ethics - who cares, right? This frenzy, this rat race towards next billion dollar company at any cost, has tore down the fabric of the society to the individual thinking level; or more like not thinking, just wanting and needing.

nickff 7mo ago
>” I inquired why founders, CEOs or developers weren't in part of the discussion or in attendance? Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion.” This seems more like credentialist arrogance than a well-reasoned judgment.
Rohunyyy 7mo ago
See in your case with the military you can directly say, hey my code will be used to bomb other people possibly. But in today's times it isn't (I am sure even then) so cut and dry. I worked in AdTech industry (like 60% of the bay area techies). So the ad tech I write gets shown to millions/billions. What about ads influencing elections and then politicians waging wars? Anti-vax ads which influence people and then kill them. Scam ads. Insurance ads and then people not getting cancer meds from the same insurance. Am I responsible for those deaths? I would say Yes. But what is the option? I feel each of us wants to draw a line based off of our morality but the circumstances don't allow us to stick to it (still gotta pay rent) We are all on a Titanic the way I see it. It's just the DARPA guy is gonna sink first. Rest of us are just pretending to be Jack trying to be the last ones to go.
- rokhayakebe 7mo ago
  Well you cannot be responsible for adults' discernment or their critical thinking. If those same ads are being shown to children that would be different.
  - danielbarla 7mo ago
    I don't see this as a binary thing. Legally we tend to draw a clear line between child and adult for pragmatic purposes, but I don't think my responsibility of intent disappears just because someone hits a magical number. I have steered clear of various gambling / "gaming" jobs which have had silly high salaries as a result; I don't in any way want to participate in things which are meant to play the weak points of the human psyche like a harp, for profit.
  - awesomeMilou 7mo ago
    But they are? And it's a fallacy to assume that critical thinking is something that you're born with. In addition to the media landscape being completely ingrained into society. I can't really escape recommender engines anymore when consuming media. If your exposure to media is curated since you were born, how are you going to tell if you're being deceived? It's pretty much the allegory of the cave.
- padjo 7mo ago
  This isn't really the moral dilemma you make it out to be.
- lukan 7mo ago
  "But what is the option?" Don't see money as the only goal? Otherwise it ain't black and white. There are forms of advertisment that are not so bad and there is a need for kill devices since there are lots of other existing kill devices. But this ad technology and this actual war ministry who take pride in revoking all "woke shit" like "rules of engagement" - I would not work for. There is other work, even if it pays less, but money ain't everything.
  - 7mo ago
EMIRELADERO 7mo ago
My pet theory is that this has been accelerated due to the cultural rejection of the humanities as worthy of study. Orwell wrote about this: https://orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien https://orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien > "The fact is that a mere training in one or more of the exact sciences, even combined with very high gifts, is no guarantee of a humane or sceptical outlook."
esafak 7mo ago
As Tom Lehrer sang: "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun.
xdennis 7mo ago
> what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing? This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West. If the US wasn't so good at producing killing machines in WW2, you wouldn't be here to complain about DARPA ethics. Instead of having engineers develop the most advanced machines for killing (i.e. protecting the West) such people go into producing the most addictive content delivery systems, destroying the brains of minors.
- paulhebert 7mo ago
  Why are those the only two options?
- queenkjuul 7mo ago
  >This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West Hell yeah
- catlifeonmars 7mo ago
  What is this “West” that you care so much about?
- davedx 7mo ago
  > This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West. He specifically said autonomous killing machines. You understand the difference right?
  - gosub100 7mo ago
    Reread the original quote: "what if the code you write OR autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing"
- tehjoker 7mo ago
  We’re the bad guys. We were only the “good guys” for like 4 years in the 1940s and we still did internment camps. Everyone is costing off that 80 year old aura to justify a death machine.
MagicMoonlight 7mo ago
[flagged]
- catlifeonmars 7mo ago
  That sounds like a false dichotomy. A race to the bottom like you describe serves to benefit no one in the long run.
- lukan 7mo ago
  I think right now US warships are rather close to China than the other way around, so in china they can say, see, they are close to us, we need weapons and military training already in schools. This is not about self defence, it is about dominance and raw power.
- vrganj 7mo ago
  The last time the Chinese started a war of aggression was in 1979. The last time the US did was a week ago.
atoav 7mo ago
Which is why on a human level I have zero respect for many CEOs. The world would be a better place without them and they are actively working on making it worse. In fact I believe the rest of the tribe should punish them for this anti-social behavior to disincentivize it in the future.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
renewiltord 7mo ago
The one industry that people dislike that I haven’t been in is war. I hope to be in weapons one day. The ethics are pretty straightforward to me: kill as few as possible to protect your interests; and that may be many people; but it is not really that many people. Anyway, I won’t guess at your friend’s motivation but if you gave me the ability to make America’s industry better at prosecuting war you’d better believe I’d do it with great enthusiasm. Besides I’ve been around long enough to know that when the rubber hits the road the ethical people will find their way rapidly to the Paradox of Tolerance and suddenly find that violence is highly desirable. I find this kind of high variance behaviour is undesirable and leads to unhappiness all around.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
yoyohello13 7mo ago
Nothing has destroyed my faith in humanity more than the frantic race to the bottom of the AI insanity the last couple years. You can feel the frenzied greed in the air, masses of investors piling over each other to get a piece of the golden pie at any cost. It’s fucking disgusting.
raldi 7mo ago
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun
hereme888 7mo ago
That's just patently false. Tons of executives and board members in industry absolutely care. Some are in it just for philanthropic purposes.
- fzeroracer 7mo ago
  Where are they? The vast majority of executive and board members are kissing every inch of this administration's ass.
  - RGamma 7mo ago
    It's best to work with the system, while you think you can still influence it.
- lkey 7mo ago
  Oh? Name them, with receipts for actions taken, not vague gestures towards morality. The actual logical end point of most of the 'for the good of humanity' folks in the bay area is: 'Only I can be trusted with the money, power, and weapons that I believe will break the world, but I promise it is for the best. No system or power should hold me to account in the event I am wrong or change my mind. Trust me.'
  - hereme888 7mo ago
    I know many of them personally, and I will not name any of them, so that virtue-signaling radical leftists on the internet cannot harass them.
    - rhubarbtree 7mo ago
      Absolute burn. But accurate. I cannot stand this kind of absolute thinking from the left or right. It’s usually just cope for personal deficiencies.
kortilla 7mo ago
> Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion. With a gate keeping attitude like that, are you really surprised engineers don’t want to participate?
- Planktonne 7mo ago
  The problem as stated isn't finding interested engineers, but qualified ones. Reframing it as just about appeal is disingenuous.
  - ImPostingOnHN 7mo ago
    Why would an anyone need prequalification to walk into a room and sit in an audience while lawyers talk about stuff on stage? Just let them in.
  - kortilla 7mo ago
    There is no such thing as “qualified”. The engineers actually doing the work definitely get a seat at the table, otherwise it’s an academic circle jerk detached from reality.
gosub100 7mo ago
What if a new weapons technology was developed by an adversary but not developed by your country. Then it was used to attack and perhaps conquer your country? Or cause an unduly higher number of casualties due to disparity of force?

by agigao 7mo ago

nickff 7mo ago

>” I inquired why founders, CEOs or developers weren't in part of the discussion or in attendance? Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion.” This seems more like credentialist arrogance than a well-reasoned judgment.

Rohunyyy 7mo ago

See in your case with the military you can directly say, hey my code will be used to bomb other people possibly. But in today's times it isn't (I am sure even then) so cut and dry. I worked in AdTech industry (like 60% of the bay area techies). So the ad tech I write gets shown to millions/billions. What about ads influencing elections and then politicians waging wars? Anti-vax ads which influence people and then kill them. Scam ads. Insurance ads and then people not getting cancer meds from the same insurance. Am I responsible for those deaths? I would say Yes. But what is the option? I feel each of us wants to draw a line based off of our morality but the circumstances don't allow us to stick to it (still gotta pay rent) We are all on a Titanic the way I see it. It's just the DARPA guy is gonna sink first. Rest of us are just pretending to be Jack trying to be the last ones to go.

rokhayakebe 7mo ago
Well you cannot be responsible for adults' discernment or their critical thinking. If those same ads are being shown to children that would be different.
- danielbarla 7mo ago
  I don't see this as a binary thing. Legally we tend to draw a clear line between child and adult for pragmatic purposes, but I don't think my responsibility of intent disappears just because someone hits a magical number. I have steered clear of various gambling / "gaming" jobs which have had silly high salaries as a result; I don't in any way want to participate in things which are meant to play the weak points of the human psyche like a harp, for profit.
- awesomeMilou 7mo ago
  But they are? And it's a fallacy to assume that critical thinking is something that you're born with. In addition to the media landscape being completely ingrained into society. I can't really escape recommender engines anymore when consuming media. If your exposure to media is curated since you were born, how are you going to tell if you're being deceived? It's pretty much the allegory of the cave.
padjo 7mo ago
This isn't really the moral dilemma you make it out to be.
lukan 7mo ago
"But what is the option?" Don't see money as the only goal? Otherwise it ain't black and white. There are forms of advertisment that are not so bad and there is a need for kill devices since there are lots of other existing kill devices. But this ad technology and this actual war ministry who take pride in revoking all "woke shit" like "rules of engagement" - I would not work for. There is other work, even if it pays less, but money ain't everything.
- 7mo ago

EMIRELADERO 7mo ago

My pet theory is that this has been accelerated due to the cultural rejection of the humanities as worthy of study. Orwell wrote about this: https://orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien https://orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien > "The fact is that a mere training in one or more of the exact sciences, even combined with very high gifts, is no guarantee of a humane or sceptical outlook."

esafak 7mo ago

As Tom Lehrer sang: "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun.

xdennis 7mo ago

> what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing? This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West. If the US wasn't so good at producing killing machines in WW2, you wouldn't be here to complain about DARPA ethics. Instead of having engineers develop the most advanced machines for killing (i.e. protecting the West) such people go into producing the most addictive content delivery systems, destroying the brains of minors.

paulhebert 7mo ago
Why are those the only two options?
queenkjuul 7mo ago
>This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West Hell yeah
catlifeonmars 7mo ago
What is this “West” that you care so much about?
davedx 7mo ago
> This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West. He specifically said autonomous killing machines. You understand the difference right?
- gosub100 7mo ago
  Reread the original quote: "what if the code you write OR autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing"
tehjoker 7mo ago
We’re the bad guys. We were only the “good guys” for like 4 years in the 1940s and we still did internment camps. Everyone is costing off that 80 year old aura to justify a death machine.

MagicMoonlight 7mo ago

[flagged]

catlifeonmars 7mo ago
That sounds like a false dichotomy. A race to the bottom like you describe serves to benefit no one in the long run.
lukan 7mo ago
I think right now US warships are rather close to China than the other way around, so in china they can say, see, they are close to us, we need weapons and military training already in schools. This is not about self defence, it is about dominance and raw power.
vrganj 7mo ago
The last time the Chinese started a war of aggression was in 1979. The last time the US did was a week ago.

atoav 7mo ago

Which is why on a human level I have zero respect for many CEOs. The world would be a better place without them and they are actively working on making it worse. In fact I believe the rest of the tribe should punish them for this anti-social behavior to disincentivize it in the future.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

renewiltord 7mo ago

The one industry that people dislike that I haven’t been in is war. I hope to be in weapons one day. The ethics are pretty straightforward to me: kill as few as possible to protect your interests; and that may be many people; but it is not really that many people. Anyway, I won’t guess at your friend’s motivation but if you gave me the ability to make America’s industry better at prosecuting war you’d better believe I’d do it with great enthusiasm. Besides I’ve been around long enough to know that when the rubber hits the road the ethical people will find their way rapidly to the Paradox of Tolerance and suddenly find that violence is highly desirable. I find this kind of high variance behaviour is undesirable and leads to unhappiness all around.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

yoyohello13 7mo ago

Nothing has destroyed my faith in humanity more than the frantic race to the bottom of the AI insanity the last couple years. You can feel the frenzied greed in the air, masses of investors piling over each other to get a piece of the golden pie at any cost. It’s fucking disgusting.

raldi 7mo ago

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun

hereme888 7mo ago

That's just patently false. Tons of executives and board members in industry absolutely care. Some are in it just for philanthropic purposes.

fzeroracer 7mo ago
Where are they? The vast majority of executive and board members are kissing every inch of this administration's ass.
- RGamma 7mo ago
  It's best to work with the system, while you think you can still influence it.
lkey 7mo ago
Oh? Name them, with receipts for actions taken, not vague gestures towards morality. The actual logical end point of most of the 'for the good of humanity' folks in the bay area is: 'Only I can be trusted with the money, power, and weapons that I believe will break the world, but I promise it is for the best. No system or power should hold me to account in the event I am wrong or change my mind. Trust me.'
- hereme888 7mo ago
  I know many of them personally, and I will not name any of them, so that virtue-signaling radical leftists on the internet cannot harass them.
  - rhubarbtree 7mo ago
    Absolute burn. But accurate. I cannot stand this kind of absolute thinking from the left or right. It’s usually just cope for personal deficiencies.

kortilla 7mo ago

> Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion. With a gate keeping attitude like that, are you really surprised engineers don’t want to participate?

Planktonne 7mo ago
The problem as stated isn't finding interested engineers, but qualified ones. Reframing it as just about appeal is disingenuous.
- ImPostingOnHN 7mo ago
  Why would an anyone need prequalification to walk into a room and sit in an audience while lawyers talk about stuff on stage? Just let them in.
- kortilla 7mo ago
  There is no such thing as “qualified”. The engineers actually doing the work definitely get a seat at the table, otherwise it’s an academic circle jerk detached from reality.

gosub100 7mo ago

What if a new weapons technology was developed by an adversary but not developed by your country. Then it was used to attack and perhaps conquer your country? Or cause an unduly higher number of casualties due to disparity of force?