In the Wake of Fake News, Several Universities Including MIT and Harvard Introduce New Course On Ethics and Regulation of AI (nytimes.com)

The medical profession has an ethic: First, do no harm. Silicon Valley has an ethos: Build it first and ask for forgiveness later. Now, in the wake of fake news and other troubles at tech companies, universities that helped produce some of Silicon Valley's top technologists are hustling to bring a more medicine-like morality to computer science, the New York Times reporter. From the report: This semester, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are jointly offering a new course on the ethics and regulation of artificial intelligence. The University of Texas at Austin just introduced a course titled "Ethical Foundations of Computer Science" -- with the idea of eventually requiring it for all computer science majors. And at Stanford University, the academic heart of the industry, three professors and a research fellow are developing a computer science ethics course for next year. They hope several hundred students will enroll. The idea is to train the next generation of technologists and policymakers to consider the ramifications of innovations -- like autonomous weapons or self-driving cars -- before those products go on sale.

Comments

Obvious question

[grasshoppa]

Has it even been proven that "fake news" is really an issue? I saw the shenanigans that Russia got up to on facebook and have a hard time believing that influenced anyone to vote differently than they otherwise might have.

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw the shenanigans that Russia got up to on facebook and have a hard time believing that influenced anyone to vote differently than they otherwise might have.

They didn't influence anything. It's pure scapegoating and deflection by the losers. The republicans were ready to do the same if they had lost. This whole "fake news" shtick is nothing more than the quest for control of mass media in its confrontation with an open internet

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with you that it's not clear how many votes were changes, I suspect a small portion of already set swing votes were swayed--which in a tight race, can be significant to a rather binary outcome.

What is more concerning is the continued lack of critical reviewing ability your average reader has to sort out fake news. Fake news and other tactics like yellow journalism have existed for hundreds of years now. More recently, infotainment is a juicier market (places like Fox love to serve this) where news commentary/opinion are served more often than actual news (in some part, due to the advent of 24-hour news networks and lack of "interesting" content). Your average viewers' inability to separate news from news commentary/opinion is an ongoing problem I've watched for years, so it's no surprise 'fake news' is successful with constant exposure to social media feeding it to viewers. To add onto this, modern day product/service marketing in the US is another example of information littered with false or deceiving claims and I see strategies used in marketing work daily.

People being bombarded with false information without the ability to identify false information is far more dangerous than swaying one presidential election. The implications are huge. If NLP ever grows to a fluid point, one could probably generate false information tailored to viewers to make it even more difficult to differentiate (the information may be far too appealing for the reader to want to disbelieve).

Re:Obvious question

[alvinrod]

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that fake news is fake news?

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

Has it even been proven that "fake news" is really an issue? I saw the shenanigans that Russia got up to on facebook and have a hard time believing that influenced anyone to vote differently than they otherwise might have.

Speaking of obvious, until you can definitely prove that "shenanigans" did not influence who was or is elected leader of one of the most powerful countries on the planet, you have no grounds to say that fake news isn't an issue.

Fake news is also like air pollution. Common sense says you don't sit back and wait until the problem is irreversible before you let your ignorant guard down and finally admit there's a problem to address.

Re:Obvious question

[grasshoppa]

Turtles, all the way down.

Re:Obvious question

[grasshoppa]

Speaking of obvious, until you can definitely prove that "shenanigans" did not influence who was or is elected leader of one of the most powerful countries on the planet, you have no grounds to say that fake news isn't an issue.

That's not how it works at all. If you want to change the status quo, you have to prove your position ( that being that fake news has significant influence ). Of course, the more you research this the more you realize it's not necessarily "fake news" that has the media in an uproar, it's more along the lines of "not our brand of dog food" fake news. It's all fine and dandy when it's fox or cnn doing it, but some uncontrolled actor? Sharpen the pitchfork and pull out your torches!

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever see what people share on fake news. Just yesterday, stuff like NAACP wants to destroy all Civil War monuments (which Snopes showed as false, as it was only one person who was a member that said that.) Or, Oprah wanting to kill all old people (again, false.)

Fake news is very common, especially from the right. Oftentimes, it is something with a tiny grain of truth, wrapped up in a boulder sized turd.

I do know it influenced other people I know to vote the way they did, when they quoted propaganda from the Russian sites. Things like the "Schumer Shutdown", which was repeated by thousands of Russian bot accounts don't help either.

Re: Obvious question

[RazorSharp]

Thatâ(TM)s because most people are insulated from idiots. I would have a hard time believing people fell for that crap, too, except I live in the Midwest and I saw it first hand.

The real kicker was when a coworker insisted I watch this Fox News story accusing Hilary Clinton of murder. It was not just the fact that Russia threw fake stories up on Facebook. The problem was they conservative news outlets ran with them, citing each other in ways that made them sound authoritative.

Of course, as soon as this was exposed Trump refashioned the phrase âoefake newsâ to refer to news that was critical to him. I would say itâ(TM)s pretty audacious for him to steal a line directly out of Oceaniaâ(TM)s playbook, but I am sure Trump never read Orwell.

Re:Obvious question

[GameboyRMH]

The existence of fake news is just a symptom - the cause is that there is a large fraction of the population that doesn't care if their news is fake, so long as it aligns with their views, because they prefer that over real news that doesn't. There will always be "fake news" in the presence of widespread, mainstreamed conspiracy nuttery. That's basically all "fake news" is - infowars/prisonplanet thinking and writing gone mainstream.

If you try to erase it from every website out there, it will fall back to chain emails. If you somehow purge it from every form of electronic communication out there, people will make up their own fake news and spread it by word of mouth and dead-tree newsletters. To fix this, you have to treat the cause rather than just the symptoms - the fix has to be in the education system. The US will be stuck with a generation or two consisting of nearly 50% tinfoil hatters until they die off, and they're set to receive more until the education system teaches people at a young age the value of facts, the danger of lies (including lying to oneself), and how to tell fact from fiction. Voters who think they're entitled to their own facts are a cancer to any democratic system.

Re:Obvious question

[jellomizer]

Well if you looked at the pooling, Trump while being behind in the polls had small peaks where he was ahead, then it would go back down. Right before the election his poling was approaching Clinton due to increase talk about reopening the email server investigation.
Now normally this is just a slap in the wrist type of violation, because we were electing a president not a CIO.
What the fake news did was amplify the real news making small stories big ones, by taking real stories putting them out of context and adding wrong facts in the mix, even if you may not fully believe it, it is enough to color your impression.
Both Trump and Clinton are very disliked as candidates. The solid Reds (~40%) will vote for Trump and the solid Blues (~40%) will vote for Clinton. Then you have the people in the middle (~20%) who will make their decision, based on who they fear most in the office.
Now Clinton had won the popular vote, however not in the right locations giving Trump an electoral win. In the surprise areas it was often population who on the average had less education and training in understanding fake news from real ones. So Fake news would be just enough to tilt an undecided voter to go one way or an other. And worse, having them choose that it isn't worth it to vote at all.

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who marked this -1? I'm a conservative, but this is entirely true. Remember Trump and his claims of "hacking the election" when he thought he'd lose and the Dems claiming that our election couldn't be hacked? That was the Rs bracing for scapegoating. The reason why the whole thing is funny for those of us with a memory longer than a gold fish is that it was the Rs preping with "ther election were haxor'd!!!!!!" when they thought they were going to fail with the D's claiming it was impossible, with the positions perfectly swapping the second the results came in, and watching all the partisan hacks running around trying to justify "their sides" when the swap came. Yes, Ds, you're pathetic. And yes, Rs, you're pathetic.

Re:Obvious question

[CrimsonAvenger]

Now normally this is just a slap in the wrist type of violation, because we were electing a president not a CIO.

Well, no. If any random Federal employee had done that with classified emails, he'd have been fired, as a minimum, and quite likely sent to jail. The government takes mishandling of classified documents seriously....

Re:Obvious question

[p4nther2004]

. The solid Reds (~40%) will vote for Trump and the solid Blues (~40%) will vote for Clinton.

Minor nit. There were a lot of solid Blues who voted for Bernie and whom did NOT vote for Clinton.

Re:Obvious question

[PopeRatzo]

I saw the shenanigans that Russia got up to on facebook and have a hard time believing that influenced anyone to vote differently than they otherwise might have.

To sway the election, they only had to influence a few tens of thousands of people. If you don't believe there are tens of thousands of Americans who can be influenced by nonsense, I suggest googling, "Church of Scientology".

In related news, just over an hour ago, the United States Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, who was appointed by Donald Trump, speaking for six intelligence agencies before Congress, said that Russia's attacks on the 2016 elections were indisputable and more cyber-attacks on US elections are "likely" and that all of the agencies are expecting attacks on the 2018 midterm elections.

https://reut.rs/2Ep1eCb

Re:Obvious question

[Shotgun]

Especially from the right, huh?

So it is not fake news when claiming that the Mueller investigation has been productive. Four indictments the last I heard. Three of them were for activities that happened years before Trump announced he was running for president, and one for an operative lying to the FBI about something he did that was not only legal, but could reasonably be considered a critical part of his job.

Pull your pants up, AC. Your bias is showing.

Re:Obvious question

[swillden]

You're the one making the claim that has to be defended. You're saying that this new stream of disinformation has no effect. In general, disinformation is a tried and true technique with a long history of success, so it's on you to demonstrate why this particular form of it is ineffectual.

Now, if someone comes along and claims that the Russian disinformation did change the election outcome, then it's on them to support their claim. But the claim that it might have follows logically from the fact that disinformation has often been effective in other contexts.

And given the stakes here, I'd argue that it behooves us to assume that social media disinformation campaigns are a threat to the integrity of our democratic process and take steps to remedy them. Unless someone can satisfactorily prove that they aren't.

Re:Obvious question

[ShanghaiBill]

Well if you looked at the pooling,

Polls have systematic biases. For instance, Democrats are more willing to participate in polls.

Re:Obvious question

[Dread_ed]

This whole fake news "problem" boils down to one thing:

Politicians, news outlets, and technology companies are pissed that someone else is doing a better job of lying to the American electorate than they are.

Re:Obvious question

[doom]

... the cause is that there is a large fraction of the population that doesn't care if their news is fake, so long as it aligns with their views,

Yeah, like 100%.

Re:Obvious question

[iamhassi]

Has it even been proven that "fake news" is really an issue?

Did anyone else notice that the article never mentions fake news at all? It's ethical dilemmas like autonomous weapons, not fake news, which would make adding "fake news" to the title fake news itself.

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

If any random Federal employee had done that with classified emails

None of the emails were classified at the time.

And you know this! I've seen you have this exact same discussion before.

Re:Obvious question

[DNS-and-BIND]

The DNC rigged the primary to put up literally the only person in the US who could lose against Donald Trump.

Re:Obvious question

[chispito]

You're the one making the claim that has to be defended. You're saying that this new stream of disinformation has no effect.

How can somebody disprove an effect if nobody is able to describe or quantify it?

Re:Obvious question

[hey!]

If Russia is making the effort to propagandize the American public, that's prima facie evidence that they at least believe it is reasonably possible that it has an effect.

As to whether their efforts have borne fruit, I don't think we're in a position to say definitively that the burden of proof lies on one side or another. It's quite reasonable to take cautious precautionary steps, which isn't tantamount to pushing the panic button.

Re:Obvious question

[swillden]

You're the one making the claim that has to be defended. You're saying that this new stream of disinformation has no effect.

How can somebody disprove an effect if nobody is able to describe or quantify it?

Describing it is easy. Quantifying it... doing that would prove or disprove it, or more likely somewhere in between. That's really hard.

But I stand by my previously-stated position: Given that this affects the integrity of our democracy, we should assume that it may be a risk and work to mitigate it, until someone can prove that it doesn't exist, or exists but is negligible.

Re:Obvious question

[Cajun Hell]

If you want to change the status quo, you have to prove your position ( that being that fake news has significant influence ).

If persuasion and spin don't work, then the entire ad industry is a scam. And maybe it is, but I think that's a somewhat extraordinary claim (given that pretty much the entire economy votes-with-its-wallet on it being not a scam).

Of course, the more you research this the more you realize it's not necessarily "fake news" that has the media in an uproar, it's more along the lines of "not our brand of dog food" fake news.

Assuming you're right, it might be irrelevant. If there is an alliance forming against bullshit, that's an opportunity to take advantage of. Who knows, you might be able to weaken several brands of dog food all at once.

Re:Obvious question

[swillden]

So I guess you are a believer in voter id laws then?

Precisely the opposite. That's a case where we can fairly easily measure the impact of the laws, in both directions and in multiple ways, and it's easy to demonstrate that they harm democracy by disenfranchising the poor far more than they help it by eliminating fraudulent voting.

Re:Obvious question

[Bryansix]

You can't prove a negative (that fake news had zero or negligible influence). You can only prove a positive like showing a survey of people saying fake news did influence them.

Re:Obvious question

[Bryansix]

What part of the email story was fake? The part where she admitted to it in an open televised debate or the part where she was not prosecuted under a statute that two different people have been prosecuted on before and after her case?

Re:Obvious question

[budgenator]

Yes I have to agree with you, when I saw the quality of the Russian propaganda all I could think is "My how the Mighty have fallen!"

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

"Productive" is a relative term, it's a value judgment, and therefore can't be rated "true" or "false", let alone "fake".

We do know Mueller has scored more indictments, in less time and with less resources, then all those Benghazi hearings ever managed.

Re:Obvious question

[budgenator]

Do they even have anybody electable? I think they'd like to run Kennedy, but I don't think a rich white trust fund kid is going to resonate with the militant millennials.

Re:Obvious question

[budgenator]

>

And given the stakes here, I'd argue that it behooves us to assume that social media disinformation campaigns are a threat to the integrity of our democratic process and take steps to remedy them. Unless someone can satisfactorily prove that they aren't.

Seems like more and more, yesterday's fake news is gaining more and more credibility.

Re:Obvious question

[PopeRatzo]

You think Russia pinpoint targeted a few ten-thousands of people, spread precisely across three states, out of more than 120 million total voters, by buying a few Facebook ads?

Don't argue with me, argue with the guys Trump appointed to be the Director of National Intelligence, the head of the FBI, NSA, CIA and DOD. Those are the guys making the claims, not me.

I mean, Trump hired them, so they have to be the best, right?

Re:Obvious question

[budgenator]

Russia always is making the effort to propagandize the American public; it's in their DNA. My hunch is any propaganda only added a little noise to the echo chamber. The only surprise is how bad they have become at it. Back in the good 'ol cold war days, that's when you saw some good Russian propaganda. The only things Russia really wants now is a warm-water sea port and a block on the Qatar-Turkey natural gas pipeline.

Re:Obvious question

[AutodidactLabrat]

Fake News is why Hillary isn't President, given that 38% of Americans remember the accusations and not the findings of NO CRIME

Re: Obvious question

[budgenator]

The real kicker was when a coworker insisted I watch this Fox News story accusing Hilary Clinton of murder..

But you have to admit there has been a lot of people dying that either knew the Clinton or was able to testify against them.

Re:Obvious question

[Whibla]

Has it even been proven that "fake news" is really an issue?

For certain values of 'proof', to my mind the answer is yes, absolutely.

As a simple example consider the case of the banking crisis of 2008. Who was responsible for this trashing of the economies of most, if not all, first world liberal democracies? Bankers, you say?

Who ended up getting blamed by the media and, consequently, Joe Public? Immigrants, the poor and unemployed, and the working classes. Oh sure, the bankers were in there too, as a group and a couple of individuals, but not for long. Who ended up getting really punished over the following decade? Yup, immigrants, the poor and unemployed, and the working classes.

The sheer amount of false information that was fed to the media and 'fountained out' via social media by lobbying organisations and think tanks masquerading as grass roots citizens groups was virtually unbelievable.

I would strongly recommend reading The Establishment by Owen Jones for a very good account of some of the organisations involved. While it is very UK-centric the principles apply equally across the pond. Even if you're a self-identified libertarian (like myself), an ardent supporter of free market capitalism in all it's amoral ugliness, or a rampant right-winger, you might find some of the observations and conclusions slightly disturbing.

Back to the specific question: A large part of the problem is that most people really don't even see that there is a problem. Obvious fake news is obvious, but then there's the deflections away from stuff that should but never does make the news, and the subtle and long term campaigns designed to persuade people that there's a consensus when no such thing exists - it's these that are much harder to spot, and much much harder to counter.

On that last I have no coherent suggestions, I'm afraid , or none that are simple at least.

Perhaps if the margins were bigger...

Re:Obvious question

[budgenator]

Numerous emails that were classified CONFIDENTIAL that were turned over by Abedin on hard-copy. Many believe the reason they were not turned over in electronic format is because it would have been trivial to search for "(C)" to find classified emails.

Re:Obvious question

[budgenator]

Influencing a few tens of thousands of people is easy, Influencing a few tens of thousands of the right people is orders of magnitude more difficult.

Re:Obvious question

[swillden]

Studies in states that have enacted voter ID strongly contradict your assertions. You speak as though it has not been enacted anywhere, but it has.

Re:Obvious question

[Bryansix]

Source?

Re:Obvious question

[GameboyRMH]

A perfect example of post-truth lunacy. There is an objective truth on any factual matter. You're not entitled to "your truth" and I'm not entitled to "my truth," there's just "THE truth."

Re:Obvious question

[PopeRatzo]

Influencing a few tens of thousands of people is easy, Influencing a few tens of thousands of the right people is orders of magnitude more difficult.

That's why you automate.

Re:Obvious question

[david_thornley]

Read Slashdot for a while. There's a lot of people who believe fake news around here.

Re:Obvious question

[david_thornley]

If it hasn't been productive, why would Nunes want a memo released from classified information that implies (but does not actually state) unprofessional things about the investigation? I have no direct knowledge of how productive it's being, and I won't until it's wrapped up, and neither will you, but it looks like it's making some people nervous.

Re: Obvious question

[david_thornley]

A lot of people have died who knew me. That's got to be suspicious, right?

Re:Obvious question

[david_thornley]

If any random Federal employee had done that with classified emails, he'd have been fired, as a minimum, and quite likely sent to jail.

Being fired is a possibility, as is losing one's security clearance, temporarily or permanently. There was one case I saw of an agreement to plead guilty of a misdemeanor, but that was dropped and the person involved didn't get a criminal record. (Misdemeanors can result in some jail time, but not prison time, and very often don't involve any detainment.)

I looked around for examples of anyone who had mishandled classified materials without the obvious intent to do so, and couldn't find anyone who was criminally prosecuted or got jail time. I've been asking for one single example every time I noticed this claim on Slashdot, and have yet to receive one. I'd be fascinated to see a counterexample.

Re:Obvious question

[david_thornley]

Unless I very much miss my guess, the ones who were prosecuted deliberately mishandled classified materials. If not, I really really want a name, because it would contradict something I've been saying for quite a few months, and I'd like to be set straight.

My usual challenge: find someone who mishandled classified materials without the intention of doing so, and was criminally prosecuted. All the cases I've seen are people who deliberately mishandled them (regardless of their intentions) and people who weren't criminally prosecuted.

Re:Obvious question

[ebvwfbw]

Has it even been proven that "fake news" is really an issue? I saw the shenanigans that Russia got up to on facebook and have a hard time believing that influenced anyone to vote differently than they otherwise might have.

No question. Main Stream Media thinks it's their job to form public opinion.
Now to put leftists between a rock and a hard place. NY Times exposing CNN's fake news:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
However I don't want other networks to feel left out (abc):
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/0...

NY Times goes all the way back to at least the 1930s when they lied about Russia:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10...

If it's the left saying something to you, it's almost certain it's a lie.

Re:Obvious question

[dwillden]

No, negligent handling of classified information is a felony. not a slap on the wrist felony, but a go to pound you in the ass Prison felony. And that assumes it was purely accidental that classified information made it onto over 100 email conversations.

More likely it was intentional to move the information from the classified networks to her private (off the record) email server that was not classified but on the open internet. That is intentional mishandling of classified information. Another Felony. Neither requires the information to fall into the hands of our enemies, just putting the data into emails on her server was over 100 felony counts worth up to 5 years (negligent) or up to 10 years (intentional) in prison per count. (each email conversation would be a count. And I'm only counting the emails that contained classified information that was classified at the time it was put into the emails).

Had anyone not named Clinton tried that they and everyone that was aware of these emails would be facing charges and possibly serious prison time. Oh that's one more felony, failure to report mishandling of classified information. Up to 10 years per count.

Not a slap on the wrist at all. But rather serious crimes on a rather large scale.

And for the record, I spent 20 years in Army Counterintelligence investigating these very types of criminal acts.

Re:Obvious question

[dwillden]

False, the 100 email conversations, including 8 with TS info that Comey identified in his briefing all contained information that was classified at the time that it was put into the emails. Any that were classified after the fact are not relevant and no charges could be pressed.

It also included emails that she specifically and illegally ordered her aides to strip classification markings from. That's deliberate security compromise and is a more serious felony than negligent compromise.

Re: Obvious question

[budgenator]

50 is a lot, two of the Secret Service Agent who were on her protection detail died in a friendly fire incident. I don't know if she had anything to do with them, I know I don't want to be around her or know her. there is some bad juju somewhere.

Really?

[argStyopa]

Do they have an "Ethics in Physics" class required for people who might design nuclear weapons?

Or an "Ethics in Chemistry" for those who might design mundane explosives or chemical weapons?

Or an "Ethics in Biomedical Engineering" for those who may eventually build killer cyborgs?

Yes, I'm saying this is silly.
Ethics is ethics, and if you're going to REQUIRE it, require it of everyone - I think our entire culture could use a good shot of ethics.

Re:Really?

[DigiShaman]

"Ethics" - as in, it's "ethical" to prevent the spread of truthful media that otherwise would lean anti-authoritarian and thus conservative. How...Orwellian

Re:Really?

[phantomfive]

It makes you think something else is going on here, especially considering three different universities decided to offer it at the same time.

Re:Really?

[jbmartin6]

It's not teaching basic ethical principles, it is getting would be creators some practice looking for undesirable consequences and ways the tools might be misused. Real world examples specific to the focus of the course are a great help here. Also likely an interesting discussion on where a creator's responsibilities lie. If you make a hammer for example, knowing full well that someone somewhere will crack a skull with it, are you ethically bound to change the design? I would say no, but students would benefit from thinking about it and discussing it. That's part of what education is supposed to be after all.

Re:Really?

[110010001000]

Yes. I don't know any engineering school that doesn't require an ethics class.

Re:Really?

[geekmux]

Do they have an "Ethics in Physics" class required for people who might design nuclear weapons?

Yeah, it's called laws and regulations. Those who actually are working in nuclear weapons design have gone through a considerable background investigation, and agreed to work within the legal parameters they've been given.

Or an "Ethics in Chemistry" for those who might design mundane explosives or chemical weapons?

See above. Also see the "F" in ATF.

Or an "Ethics in Biomedical Engineering" for those who may eventually build killer cyborgs?

Hippocrates was thinking about this problem about 2,000 years ago. See Hippocratic Oath.

Yes, I'm saying this is silly. Ethics is ethics, and if you're going to REQUIRE it, require it of everyone - I think our entire culture could use a good shot of ethics.

Every major company I've ever worked for has a mandatory ethics policy, along with training, which has existed for decades. It already IS required of everyone, so that's NOT the problem. What we need, is a good shot of enforcement, as highlighted by the Times Up movement. We should also remember that morals and ethics start with sound parenting. You're either raised to understand and respect ethics, or you're not. An evil liar armed with bomb making skills doesn't give a fuck about ethics.

Re: Really?

[RazorSharp]

I certainly agree. We tend to think of ethics as a class for philosophy majors, but it should be studied by everyone. While many curricula require an ethics class tailored for them, such as medical ethics or business ethics, these classes can be problematic. Medical ethics tends to focus on the entirely bogus âoeethics of careâ while business ethics tends to devolve into ethical egoism.

As for the hard sciences, I think an ethics class focused on the Kurt Vonnegut nove Cats Cradle would be ideal.

Re:Really?

[Dragonslicer]

I went to a mid-tier state university 20 years ago, and we had a required course about computers and ethics. Then again, the primary reason for having it was to fulfill the university's ethics requirement without needing to take a pointless intro class from the Philosophy department.

Re:Really?

[Tempest_2084]

I have a degree in Computer Science and yes, I had to take an ethics in technology class. I found it rather interesting too. This was long before Facebook and Social Media though so I imagine the class has changed quite a bit.

Re:Really?

[argStyopa]

Are you seriously asserting that libertarianism isn't on the "conservative" side of the fence?

Conservatism in the US is inherently anti-authoritarian. The most fundamental plank of the Republican party is a smaller federal government, optimally one that ONLY serves its constitutional functions. (Notwithstanding the betrayal of these principles by Republicans in Washington since 2000 - such betrayal being one of the least-discussed but substantial bases for groundswell support for Trump.)

I'm curious on what basis you'd believe it wasn't?

Re:Really?

[gnunick]

Do they have an "Ethics in Physics" class required for people who might design nuclear weapons?

Or an "Ethics in Chemistry" for those who might design mundane explosives or chemical weapons?

...

Yes, absolutely. Ethics was a requirement for my B.S. in Chemistry, over 20 years ago. I don't know how widespread that requirement was or is, or whether a deeper focus on ethics is required for post-graduate Chemistry studies.

But it should be required for everyone, whether or not they have an interest in science. And it certainly should be a requirement for Chemistry, Physics, (perhaps most of all) Biotech, Computer Science... and in fact all sciences; they all have the potential to discover or invent truly dangerous materials or technologies, and therefore have a much greater moral responsibility than so-called laypeople.

In the end, I chose a different career path (software development) for which I didn't require any further (formal) education. I've found that having a strong sense of ethics and morals greatly restricts my employment opportunities (at least as much as if I'd continued with chemistry). But thankfully I'm not alone in taking responsibility for my actions, and considering the potential ramifications of whatever I may create.

I find it refreshing and frankly way overdue that these schools have realized the need for having their students formally consider the ethical ramifications of so-called AI. I hope the need becomes universally recognized.

Re: Really?

[CyberRacer]

Awesome book. Couldn't put it down till I read it twice.

Re:Really?

[david_thornley]

Libertarians want massive changes in how we do things, and therefore are not conservatives. Conservatives believe in slow change, rather than restructuring things based on theory. I have a certain respect for conservatives, although I often disagree with them, and would like to see them have a political party again. Libertarians may tend to vote Republican rather than Democrat, but I'm not too impressed by their political acumen anyway. Last time I looked at a Libertarian party platform, it was full of things that simply wouldn't work in the real world.

I'd place the betrayal, as you put it, in the 1990s somewhere, if not earlier. Nixon doesn't strike me as anti-authoritarian. In any case, if a party has been against something for eighteen years, it seems disingenuous at best to claim that something is the most fundamental plank of the party. I'd also expect conservatives to be in favor of lower deficits, and for almost forty years now that would mean favoring Democrats.

So, I don't know what conservatives would want that much, but that has nothing to do with the Republican party wants.

Re:Really?

[david_thornley]

Nope. Communism has been, in practice, highly authoritarian, and it's a radical leftist approach to restructuring society. Authoritarianism runs across the left-right spectrum.

Easy

[jbmartin6]

The idea is to train the next generation of technologists and policymakers to consider the ramifications of innovations

Easy, just send them to /. to read all the posts by debbie downers

Isn't this just oxymoron driven buzz?

[adosch]

I commend MIT, as an elite academic institution who gets a ton of top-talent world-wide, putting a buzzy ethics topic in the computer science world for AI. But isn't a bit contradictory to think, without really any facts in my end, but I guess a healthy crop of MIT grad's exist in Silicon Valley, and surely may not be the big names in the social startups we have today, but probably have a good engineering and intellectual hand in all of it.

I think Silicon Valley in it's entirety should now be the ones taking that alma mater course being offered. At scale, they are the very ones TO abuse it (and already are, by magnitudes that we don't even publicly know about). Sure, this is like teaching kids today that contact American football is dangerous and concussions cause CTE, but didn't we know all along without an acronym like CTE that getting your head knocked-the-fuck around, you're going to get messed up? I think this is just a I-told-you-so shit that Bezos has been preaching about the last few years.

Re:Isn't this just oxymoron driven buzz?

[alvinrod]

Maybe it's just a way to get people interested in an ethics class. Generally they tend to be the type of class that most of the students don't take very seriously, because who the hell really has the perspective to at 20 years old. It's a class that everyone will agree should be in the curriculum, but is probably utterly useless in whether it actually does anything. It's pretty easy to get everyone in class to nod their heads about what is or isn't ethical, but turn them loose in the real world and give them mortgage payments and everyone's morality becomes a bit more pliable. It's not very often that people are overtly asked to do something obviously evil or illegal and so we end up with plenty of unethical events that aren't a result of any one clear cut directive, but a matter of dozens or hundreds of small choices that led down that particular path.

Re:Isn't this just oxymoron driven buzz?

[Bryansix]

This is exactly the problem actually. You can have a class with a goal of making people think about ethics but you can't teach people to be ethical. That's a decision they will make on their own based on their own calculation of risk versus reward. It's the same way with trying to teach people critical thinking skills. You can tell them how to think critically but whether they do it or not is dependent on them wanting to put in the extra effort.

"New"?

[Pyramid]

I think a course about the ethics of AI is a great idea. But aren't Ethics and Critical Thinking classes already requirements? They were when I was at University, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

If they aren't fundamental requirements at every college, the system has failed.

Re:"New"?

[110010001000]

That is what I was thinking too. In engineering school you have to take an engineering ethics class.

Wrong Target

[tsqr]

You don't need to teach ethics to CS majors. You need to teach ethics to Business majors.

Re:Wrong Target

[Nidi62]

The movie Billy Madison perfectly demonstrated the well known fact that business ethics inevitably ends with someone pulling out a gun.

Re:Wrong Target

[Dread_ed]

Judging by their propensity to join radicalized groups at a greater rate than other professions, it is maybe engineers who need ethics the most.

As for business majors, we both know that ethics is wasted on narcissists and people with borderline personality disorder. Wouldn't help.

Re:Wrong Target

[Subm]

> You don't need to teach ethics to CS majors. You need to teach ethics to Business majors.

Such as the founders of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple, the companies most invading our privacy and lobbying the government to do more?

Several of them still have most of the control of their companies.

Re:Wrong Target

[Bryansix]

> You don't need to teach ethics to CS majors. You need to teach ethics to Business majors.

Such as the founders of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple, the companies most invading our privacy and lobbying the government to do more?

Several of them still have most of the control of their companies.

Most of them don't have degrees.

Re:Wrong Target

[tsqr]

Founders are only relevant if they're still running the companies. Look at the current crop of CEOs:

Facebook: Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard after his sophomore year, but Harvard has given him an honorary Doctor of Laws degree last year.

Google: Sundar Pichai earned an MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Microsoft: Satya Nadella earned an MBA from University of Chicago.

Apple: Tim Cook earned an MBA from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business.

Re:Just about barriers to entry...

[fluffernutter]

You're implying that the 'disruptive' nature of technology helps average people, but that's not true either. All most do is offer a small improvement to a customer at the determent and cost to the rest of society; whether it be Uber's worming through of taxi regulations or Airb2b's worming through of residential zoning laws, or Waze sending cars streaming through once quiet neighborhoods, or delivery apps leaching everyone.

First Do No Harm

[Anonymous Coward]

Like creating antibiotic resistant super bugs, manufacturing the opioid epidemic, recommending cigarettes to Olympic athletes, keeping vegetables alive against their will until every last cent is drained from their estate, or adding NA to a drug and increasing its price 10,000%.

First get paid.

Ethic, schmethic

[Archtech]

"The medical profession has an ethic: First, do no harm".

That looks like a reference to part of the Hippocratic Oath. Honoured, regrettably, in the breech these days.

"Medical Care Is 3rd Leading Cause of Death in U.S."
https://chriskresser.com/medic...

Admittedly that dates from about ten years ago. I expect the butcher's bill has grown since.

"Hustling"...yes

[aicrules]

Hustling is the perfect word to use because this is absolutely that...a hustle. Teach ethics by acting ethically. Universities are where a much more sinister and impactful "fake news" starts.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Just about barriers to entry...

[fluffernutter]

An evolution to where? Where could any of this go other than make a few people very rich and living in walled gardens while the rest of the world is a toilet?

Soooo...

[sycodon]

What happened to the old Ethics courses?

Re:Soooo...

[mikael]

They were called something like "Social Implications" and would cover things like the various laws in different countries; the Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act. Recommended textbooks were the "The Coming of the Chip" (by Anthony Hyman) and recommended video was
Now The Chips are Down.
Everyone knew in the 1980's that "microprocessors" were about to bring about change ranging from the paperless office to remote working and online purchases

Re:Soooo...

[Zmobie]

I'm confused myself. It has been about seven years since I graduated, but all engineering students at my university were required to take an ethics course then already (Pretty sure all ABET accredited degrees require some form of ethics). It covered both legal implications/liability and the actual moral side and importance of being responsible when doing any type of work in the field. We even discussed in depth the societal implications and impact several engineering disciplines can have on society (including Computer Science). Hell I remember at least a few times where the professor brought up the medical ethics saying precisely telling us that should always be kept in mind. My university may have been/still is one of the top CS programs for us normal people (top 50 ranking), but I would think places like MIT/Stanford/UT Austin would have had this a looooooooooooong time ago.

Here's a crazy idea

[theblkadder]

Reintroduce a course on ethics in journalism. AI may be a symptom, but the underlying problem are activists producing propaganda under the guise of journalism.

Re:Here's a crazy idea

[walterbyrd]

The course would be taught by a commie instructors. They would teach students that commie propaganda, and censoring dissenting opinions, are the only ethical things to do.

Adding "on the Internet" for money.

[houghi]

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.

The fact that they just added 'for AI' means they are just cashing in. This is just like all the patent trolls that added 'on the Internet' on existing ones to "create" a new one.

Ethics is the same regardless if it is done by an AI or by a human. Why, you ask? Well, that is explained in a Ethics class. Not just a subset of Ethics, like Ethics for AI or Ethics for Women or Ethics on the Internet.

If there is a difference in ethics for AI and for non-AI I would like to hear it.

Re:Adding "on the Internet" for money.

[david_thornley]

Ethics is a pretty wide field, covering all aspects of human behavior in its way. As none of us are capable of (say) analyzing on the fly all the effects of our decisions and summing the positive and negative results, we need to put thought into general guidelines. Therefore, we get ethics for journalists, ethics for businesspeople, ethics for engineers, etc., which are generally accepted principles of ethics applied to more concrete situations. (Not that everyone behaves ethically.) Different areas bring up different problems. AI is one of them. At what point do AIs have moral responsibilities? Moral rights? We know of complicated systems that act unethically; who's responsible for that behavior?

Better make it a first semester course...

[shess]

...since a lot of the people in control of these places didn't graduate.

"Fake News" means anything not far left

[walterbyrd]

When conservatives accuse CNN of fake news, they mean CNN caught red-handed deliberately lying.

When liberals speak of "fake news" they mean anything that does not fit their agenda.

Don't believe me? Care to explain why PragerU videos are being restricted by Google?

Who Will Google Silence Next
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giNJwXiktZ0

Re:"Fake News" means anything not far left

[DRJlaw]

When liberals accuse CNN of fake news, they mean CNN caught red-handed deliberately lying.

When Trumpites speak of "fake news" they mean anything that does not fit their agenda.

FTFY. Really, you shouldn't have picked a topic that is so easily refuted.

Re:"Fake News" means anything not far left

[DRJlaw]

Ad hominem attacks against news outlets are not valid rebuttals.

Tech IS neutral

[Cajun Hell]

"Technology is not neutral," said Professor Sahami, who formerly worked at Google as a senior research scientist. "The choices that get made in building technology then have social ramifications."

But those choices are almost always based on the predicted social ramifications. Granted, that social ramification is often "doing it this way will cause people to spend more money on our product or service" but you know what you're doing when you make those choices.

Tech is neutral. Your goals that you use tech to advance, are what's not neutral.

Re:Tech IS neutral

[fish_in_the_c]

Guns and Nuclear bombs are tech. Tech is neutral, the people who use it aren't and the gun runners are not with out responsibility, Weather or not it is 'moral' responsibility requires you first believe morals exists.

Who's ethics.

[fish_in_the_c]

ethical decisions first require a moral context to be formed.

For instance, if I provide you with drugs that prevent you from reproducing. Am I harming your reproductive system? What I force the drugs on you?
What if i provide you with 'treatment' that makes you blind? when you suffer from a psychosis that causes you mental pain that you are not blind?
What about surgery where I cut off pieces of you to make you look like a sex you are not. Does that harm you?
How about if I help you 'pass from pain to death' ... ' of your own free will'. Then again , why is your free will important if I don't want to have to pay for you to be alive, or your living is a significant burden on those around you.

Moral context is everything to ethical decisions, by attempting to build a society based on materialistic pragmatism, the idea that ethics exists has been put into serious question. So , for a secular university there are only two ways to have an 'ethics' coarse. 1) promote someone's person religious/ philosophical views OR 2) Have a coarse about what is illegal and not illegal and why with no reference to weather or not the laws are morally correct.

Re:Who's ethics.

[fish_in_the_c]

what if what 'others' want done to them is NOT something I would want done to me?
Or rather , what if what I very much want done to me isn't something others do not want.

So for instance, I like to be told when I'm wrong. I consider it an act of kindness to correct my mis-conceptions. ( although I might challenge your proof.)
Some other people feel very differently.

I suppose you could go with the do to other's what they feel is what they want you to do, but how does that work when you don't want to do what they want ( who should be following the rule?) .

On the other hand , there are MANY people who would like to see force used to stop a murderer or a thief, except of coarse the murder or thief, so again, you can't apply that rule there, even if you would like someone to stop you from stealing or murdering.

Nutcase insulation

[Cajun Hell]

I can't agree more. It is so easy to discount crackpot shit, until you meet it in real life.

I had a friend and a girlfriend (now very ex-) who were 9/11 truthers. They were both convinced the WTC towers collapsed from demolition charges, the planes which hit them and the pentagon may or may not have even existed, and thought the "loose change" video was an accurate description of what happened.

Their "evidence" for the demolition charges was "that's what it looks like." I don't want to even get started on the whole thing here yet fucking again; fuck this.

The more I learned about her (the now-ex-gf) especially, the more religious stuff would come up. (e.g. she would burn "smudge" to get bad energy out of the house, and could measure chakra spin with pendulums, and last I heard from her, she was getting into the Landmark Forum cult.)

At one point she even admitted to being a Christian. If only "Forged in Fire" had been a TV show back then, maybe I could have converted her from a Christian 9/11 truther to a Hephaestus worshipper. ;-) I am pretty sure there were absolutely no limits to what she would accept in defiance of day-to-day reality and empiricism.

You can make up the most ridiculous stuff that you know nobody could ever take seriously, and people will take it seriously. If you think people aren't shockingly gullable, then you don't know people. Everyone should ask themselves: are you filtering these nutcases out of your life? Because it's sort of common sense that you should filter nutcases out of your life, but .. there you go: insulation, and therefore: ignorance.

I haven't kept up with either of these people, but maybe if I had, I might have known in advance that Trump would get more than 5% of the vote. And really, I already should have known.

Re:Nutcase insulation

[Cajun Hell]

And you can not prove 100% that the wtc towers did not fell because of the explosives.

I also can't prove that gravity or electrons exist. Nevertheless, all the evidence (so far) suggests they do, or are at least excellent descriptions for what's happening.

You are only talking because you can not get the idea that a government can tell a big lie with a straight face.

The government is irrelevant; even if you assume they lie, you would never notice because their words are a minority. For the towers to have been demolished, every fireman (whoops, those are goverment employees, so you got me there), every structural engineer, and every architect has to be lying or deluded about the properties of steel. Your high school chemistry teacher had to have joined The Great Conspiracy decades before the operation's trigger was finally pulled, as well as every single person who ever worked in a steel mill. Every person who was there, was coerced or tricked. Every video clip was faked. Most of the people who were in New York on that day, are part of The Great Conspiracy.

A person can keep a secret. Ten people can keep a secret if they are well disciplined and also you start assassinating them ASAP. Your conspiracy theory requires millions of people to keep a secret, and for many years. Most New Yorkers are in on it. (But what do you expect from a city full of left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers?)

My conspiracy theory requires 20 people keep a secret for a short time and then die in the act. My theory, unlike yours, allows that you can ask people-who-design-buildings what would happen if you used the WTC design and lit a hot fire in it, and you can accept a diverse array of honest, un-choreographed, improvised opinions without worrying about that someone will slip up and accidentally give away the scam. Somehow, "they" got to every single engineer, the whole world over. My answer allows me to ignore whatever the government happens to say, whereas yours requires that many thousands of people in the government have to remember to always consistently lie about everything, and for the rest of their lives. Your theory requires that nobody be interested in whistle-blowing even though it would bring them immense fame.

Best of all: Your theory requires that the architect of the attack, once they thought up the brilliant idea of crashing jets into WTC as a cover for the demolition charges, didn't suddenly blurt out "holy crap, let's scrap plan A (demolition charges) because this plan B (crashing fuel-laden planes) is going to be more reliable, more spectacular, cheaper to perform, and safer from advanced detection." Thus, your theory requires that everyone in the operation (the millions of them) not only be unprecedentedly brilliant at keeping secrets, but absolute morons at performing the operation itself, such that they have this complex unreliable rube-goldberg design.

Your conspiracy was truly an act of the gods. Mine merely required humans.

Re: Just about barriers to entry...

[Zmobie]

While Uber is a garbage company and I've heard Airbnb isn't much better, their business idea is actually great just executed like a bunch of immoral greedy assholes.

The taxi monopoly was half horseshit anyway as really it is just entrenched people that used the political system to keep other players from ever even entering the space. Why should it cost 50 dollars to go a few blocks in LA? You want to talk about making a few people rich, go research the people that own most of the taxi medallions in the big cities, they are no better than the Uber execs. Really the only difference is they don't treat the drivers like complete shit, but they damn sure try to keep them from getting a real cut of their ridiculous large pie. I digress though. Benefits of Uber include, cheaper (probably a bit too cheap, but I wouldn't mind paying a little bit more to help the employees out) and easier to obtain rides, less cars on the road thanks to more efficient usage of the ones that are on it, and less issues due to a high number of cars on the road. Disruption of the taxi industry is a good thing, especially to society at large.

Airbnb is a little different as allowing people to let strangers stay in or around their home can be problematic simply because the vast majority of people are ill-informed of the baseline treatment required for those people or even the risks they are taking on. The number of people that don't even realize if someone gets hurt on your property you are liable illustrates that easily. A Libertarian would argue that is their choice, but we all know not everyone can be trusted and there are enough dumb people that would ruin it for everyone. Again though, allowing for more efficient usage of space and dwellings is not a bad thing. People pay less for short term lodging, homeowners can help utilize extra space for some monetary benefit, wider selection of locations when travelling, and not having to deal with ridiculously shitty or expensive hotel/motel monopolies in some of the more obscure locations. Again, disruption of the hotel/travel industry is a good thing to society at large.

Now as far as Waze, I am honestly tired of people complaining about it at all especially by saying, "sending cars through their 'quiet' neighborhood." Seriously, it is basically just using PUBLIC infrastructure more efficiently, getting cars off the road faster, reducing the number of dangerous traffic jams and incidents caused by them, and reducing pollution if the cars spend less time sitting on the road. If you want a quiet neighborhood that no one passes through either move to a dead end street or buy the fucking roads from the city and gate your community. You have no right to say people can't/shouldn't use those streets when public funding paid for them to be built and/or maintained. If you want to talk about the needs of the many outweighing the few, this is a prime example and driving is damn sure some low hanging fruit to improve safety and efficiency.

The delivery apps the jury is still out on in my mind, but tentatively I could probably argue that if they were run with some real ethics and morals they would again be an improvement for society. I won't get into them here though as I would have to get into a bunch of business analysis that I haven't even thought through fully.

Now, my main counter point to you is that if Uber and Airbnb actually took ethics and morals into real consideration, not only in the sense of trying to act like it because of the impending PR disaster that would and in some cases already has struck them, then their businesses would actually be great for the reasons I already mentioned and probably lots more. The entire idea of the technology being disruptive is more akin to shaking up existing systems/industries because the models could be improved or were terrible anyway. That is half of what engineers do all day is look for and implement process/model improvements. Sometimes those improvements do render other things obsolete though, and that is what mo

Re:Obvious question -- unfortunately

[fish_in_the_c]

The value of facts is a moral and philosophical position. It is part of a religious framework that values truth and rational capacity of human being to known.
Modern liberalism has ensured that any discussion about actual facts or the value of truth and rational thought has been banished from the educational system under the guise of 'freedom of religion' There is no longer any such things as 'facts' that lead to 'truth' there is only 'your truth' and 'my truth' and both are to be equally valued. Trumps brilliance, weather intentional or not, is that he tied directly into that thought process and used it to push a specific agenda. He has exposed the hypocrisy on the left by exploiting ignorance of the right as it has been taught to them.

Anyone who talks about 'alternative truth' is engaging in moral relativism , which is exactly the opposite of 'traditional western thought' and in fact comes directly from European liberalism as promoted in american schools for the last 50 years. It also, naturally opposes any organized religion. Trump is in many ways more liberal then the left, just not on the issues that get him what he wants.

Re:Just about barriers to entry...

[Hal_Porter]

No it'll be like journalism. Journalists study ethics at J school and as we all know every single J school graduate is ethically perfect. That's why there's no such thing as fake news, clickbait or people running press releases they haven't read because the headline suits their publication's ideologically biases. Every single journalist carefully verifies the facts of the story they are running, and if they later find out they've made a mistake they issue a fulsome mea culpa as prominently as the original story. When their editor slaps them on the ass and tells them to "clickbait and shil" they say "No Sir, I have my principles" and get the bus back to the Midwest or wherever they came from. They're poorer but they're sure they made the right decision and have stayed uncorrupted by the big city media and its amoral materialism. Then they meet a nice country boy, start a family and live happily ever after.

Oh wait...

Start with Social Philosophy, then Ethics

[BobC]

Teaching any flavor of Ethics in isolation from it's context and conceptual roots is like teaching cake decoration without first understanding cake baking.

Start with the fundamental questions:
- What is it to be human?
- What is the individual?
- How can/do/should individuals interact?
- What is society?
- What is the relationship between the individual and society?
- What must/should the individual reasonably give up or provide to participate in society?
- What must/should society provide to the individual?
- What is law?
- What is a government?
- What is a citizen?
- Why can/should governments exist? Are they necessary?
- Where can/do/should government and society overlap, and where must they not?
- How do governments support society and the individual?
- What can/should a government require from, and provide to, its citizens?
- What is justice?

That's just the start. The terrain covers the general notion of a course sequence I'd call "The Individual and Society". An ideal approach is historical: The development and evolution of thought in this area starts from Plato, Socrates and Aristophanes, through Locke, Mills, Hobbes, Rousseau, and on to Rawls and his successors and critics. And many more I've failed to list.

The basics can be covered in a single year-long sequence that provides the context in which Ethics can then be studied, after which it may then be applied to specific domains. Done with focus and determination, it can all be covered "well enough" in two year-long sequences.

Though my undergrad degree is in Computer Engineering, it was my electives in Philosophy that enabled me to critically reason about some important career preferences. I was working in R&D even before I graduated, and much R&D funding was from the US Government, and the largest share of that was from the US military and DARPA (and its kin).

As a responsible citizen, I first decided I didn't want to work on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then, given the ever increasing lethality of conventional precision munitions, I decided I didn't really want to work on weapons at all. But as a veteran, I personally knew the value of a strong military. So I found a comfortable middle ground: While I wouldn't work on "Things that Go Boom", I would work on the things that carried them (aircraft, ships, subs, rockets), and the tools needed to safely make them (production line and inspection technology).

But that wasn't enough. I loved developing new technologies, and I knew how easily I could be drawn to "the Dark Side", particularly concerning "dual-use" technologies.. So I made a conscious choice to never pursue a Top Secret (or higher) security clearance, which automatically kept me away from "dark" or "black" projects.

I felt I knew where I had drawn my personal and professional line, and why. If push ever came to shove, I consciously chose to change jobs if needed.

Then the day came when I was asked to present some of my work to a panel of folks with TS clearances who wanted to explore "other" applications. I was contractually bound to present all details of my work to our funding agency. But what, if any, responsibility did I have to in any way guide or help determine or limit it's future use?

I chose to walk a very narrow line, to describe the specifics of the work I had done, both its theoretical development and its application and testing. But do so without any generalization whatsoever. Of course, I was asked many general questions, to which I responded with my lack of experience in highly classified domains, and my lack of the clearances needed to discuss them. I do believe I delivered more than enough detail for others to carry my work forward into other domains, but I did none of that work for them. As I said, a very narrow line. I'm not at all sure I stayed far enough out of the gray area to say I was

Re:Just about barriers to entry...

[Bryansix]

Not all technologies operate on a zero sum game. Your examples do but there are plenty examples that don't. For instance, the Internet itself has almost zero negative externalaties but is extremely disruptive to industries like the post office and paper production.

Computer Ethics

[jsepeta]

I was required to study computer ethics at the University of Notre Dame in the 1980's. Good to see Harvard and MIT coming around.

A good class for today's lesson.

[CyberRacer]

Given the topic of fake news and such, I found this class from the University of Washington to be quite enlightening. http://callingbullshit.org/ind...

Re:Obvious question -- unfortunately

[david_thornley]

The value of facts is independent of religion. Scientists tend to be atheists and irreligious, but nobody values facts more. Lots of people who claim to be devoutly religious have the utmost disdain for any facts that don't agree with their prejudices. You're making that part up.

I grew up in a US educational system, and so did my son. Neither of us experienced anything like what you claim. There are different points of view (which liberals approve of), not different facts.

US educational systems are very heavily local. In areas with lots of right-wingers, left-wingers really don't control education. That's why we get evolution not taught properly in schools, for example. Liberals go with the observed facts on that. Leftists tend to have our own unscientific attitudes, but not so much as to screw up science teaching. (Leftists tend to be bad on guns, often have more than the rational amount of distrust of nuclear power, and repeat false stories about Monsanto, to name a few things.)

"Moral relativism" may be against traditional western thought. So are women being treated as real humans, racial equality, and (to a large extent) democracy. Consequentialism made a splash with Bentham and J.S. Mill writing about utilitarianism, and that's Nineteenth Century philosophy. Or, if you think of "moral relativism" as being amoral, read Machiavelli's "Prince" for a centuries-old take on it. It's not anti-religion, although some religious groups prefer prescriptivist morals. Since consequentialism doesn't have any agreed-on standard of good (although see Sam Harris for an interesting approach), it's perfectly possible to have a consequentialist ethic with closeness to God as the thing to be optimized.

Re:Ethic, schmethic -- do no harm.

[david_thornley]

Your list of examples suggests that you aren't going to be open to contrary views, but you're wrong. You also seem to see objective ethics as a set of rules, rather than utilitarianism.

There is no such thing as objective morality, in the sense that of being objectively correct. If you are going to trot out some religious rules, I, not being a member of your religion, will reject them, and you will have no arguments to convince me. It isn't possible to deduce ethics without some sort of principles to begin with, and in general people don't agree on them, and they aren't able to be investigated by science.

As far as a non-material divine realm, that's cute. If God were to tell me something, I'd listen. If some idiot who claims to speak for God tells me something, I'm certainly not going to accept it at face value. I'm going to run it past my own ethical system, which does exist. What little evidence I've seen suggests that religious people tend to be less ethical than non-religious people (I might actually try studying that sometime), which would make sense, as morals taught for a reward tend not to stick as well as morals without a reward motive.