This hits the nail on the head. To put it into a more cut and dry example: If you work as a programmer or engineer for a company that makes ballistic missiles, you're helping to kill those on the...
The rapid computerization of society has decreased the time necessary to build novel machines one thousand-fold. This endows us with a great responsibility, because whatever we build with them, the changes they bring to society will be upon us much, much faster than any changes to come before. Every software developer possesses alone the potential of 50 engineers living just 100 years ago. We can apply this power for good or for ill, but it’s up to each of us to make a deliberate choice on the matter.
This hits the nail on the head.
To put it into a more cut and dry example: If you work as a programmer or engineer for a company that makes ballistic missiles, you're helping to kill those on the receiving end of those missiles. You might just work in a cubicle writing code for the guidance system and think you're not playing a particularly big part, but you are.
And recent technological advances have helped to make each of us even more efficient and productive. We should use that for good.
I met a developer who was part in creating the guidance systems for Military Drones for SAAB - this was years ago and I still honestly regret not just slapping them right there on the conference...
I met a developer who was part in creating the guidance systems for Military Drones for SAAB - this was years ago and I still honestly regret not just slapping them right there on the conference main floor. Me and some coworkers just stood around in absurd shock at the callous way this person described their job and the honestly pure mockery they gave to anyone who wondered how they squared that with just "human decency".
Thats the part that gets me I think - that for every finger on the trigger of a gun, there are generals who order the pull, elected politicians that demand the arming and companies more than willing to sell the ammo, the guns, the helmets and the bodybags.
Yeah, it's a really fine line to walk. I once wrote a paper on extracting colors and objects. It was later referenced in another paper about military drones. Nothing in my paper had anything to do...
Yeah, it's a really fine line to walk. I once wrote a paper on extracting colors and objects. It was later referenced in another paper about military drones. Nothing in my paper had anything to do with drones or the military. It was just showing how to do some image processing. Am I now culpable because someone else took my work and potentially did something illegal or immoral with it? That seems absurd to me.
I've also worked on lots of different products for editing videos. I'm pretty sure that at some point, organizations like ISIS or Al Queda have made recruiting and/or ransom videos with at least one of these products. Am I on the hook for that, too? Should I not have taken the work because there was the potential for people to do awful things with it?
Are they? That's kind of why I asked. I'm trying to understand how far people in this discussion think this should go. Also, do people here think that having a military is immoral? I live in the...
Are they? That's kind of why I asked. I'm trying to understand how far people in this discussion think this should go.
Also, do people here think that having a military is immoral? I live in the US and our military has a long checkered history and a lot of current issues, but we do need something and someone to defend our borders. Realistically, that means we need the ability to kill people who would forcibly try to take it from us. Someone has to build those systems and someone has to use them or we're defenseless. So where exactly do you feel the line should be drawn on what programmers in those positions should and shouldn't work on? (And for the record, I would never be able to bring myself to work on such systems. But I do see that unfortunately they are needed, so I can't really blame people who are willing to work on them.)
Yes I think intent and expectation are very relevant to questions of complicity. I see no difference between designing, crafting, or deploying a weapons system that, for instance, murders children...
Yes I think intent and expectation are very relevant to questions of complicity.
I see no difference between designing, crafting, or deploying a weapons system that, for instance, murders children when the organization that the designer and crafter are working for has a history of doing that and have made no indication that they will desist.
I think it also speaks to the prejudices of the creator. I, for one, would have only moderate qualms building ICBMs due to my belief that nuclearization is both inevitable, and reduces the chance...
I think it also speaks to the prejudices of the creator. I, for one, would have only moderate qualms building ICBMs due to my belief that nuclearization is both inevitable, and reduces the chance of large scale loss of life like another world war. In the other hand, I would not build anti ballistic missile defense systems as those ABM buildup destroys MAD, and increases the chance of a nuclear power attempting to make a first strike on another country. I feel like a lot of people might disagree with those personal principles, and that's OK.
Anyway, we all presumably pay taxes, and half of that goes to baby killers anyway, if we believe in that line of logic. But I don't think the solution is to not pay taxes.
I used that non-specific example to demonstrate the importance of intent and expectation in the discussion of complicity. I had written something about the US military but then deleted it because...
I used that non-specific example to demonstrate the importance of intent and expectation in the discussion of complicity.
I had written something about the US military but then deleted it because I don't feel like despising anyone today.
To be clear, I was asking if they're being overlooked? I'm having a hard time understanding the intent of some of what's being posted. I couldn't tell if the earlier posts were being absolutist...
To be clear, I was asking if they're being overlooked? I'm having a hard time understanding the intent of some of what's being posted. I couldn't tell if the earlier posts were being absolutist (and hence not overlooking those things, just taking a really hard stance against them), or if they were actually being overlooked. But yes, I agree that they are relevant to the questions of complicity.
Well being tasked with “improving guidance systems for military drones” leaves little wiggle room for that reasoning I think. Either you can square it or you can’t. And your argument is also able...
Well being tasked with “improving guidance systems for military drones” leaves little wiggle room for that reasoning I think. Either you can square it or you can’t.
And your argument is also able to be dragged into its extreme in a similar fashion. “If I don’t someone else will”
I honestly don't think its an excuse. She knew what they are used for - this is not a secret so at no point could she claim that she wasn't aware then as she is now of what they are for, the...
I honestly don't think its an excuse.
She knew what they are used for - this is not a secret so at no point could she claim that she wasn't aware then as she is now of what they are for, the effects they have etc. [sidenote: the fact that she was being glib about the effects of them may have made me angrier at the time]
She also had choices - she is a fairly well paid software engineer in a very large and spacious market. She isn't struggling to put food on her table. So there is no force behind the choice.
And waving away the choice by claiming that someone else would do it otherwise is a false dichotomy. Someone will always be able to do anything, but that doesn't mean you and I are allowed to do whatever we like.
Military technologies make their way in to public domain and in a non lethal fashion yes - but its never changes the effect of ones actions. Claiming a possible future good is a hard argument to carry in the light of very concrete current evils.
When I was younger I would have agreed with you I think, but the older I get - the less acceptance I have for it (I honestly don't know why, I am NOT trying to say "Oh you young idealistic fool" or something dishonest like that - I am just not sure WHY I find my self less and less accepting of certain things and way less philosophical about them).
There are actions for which there are no excuses. Being complicit, is to be part at a certain point and I whole heartedly believe that our actions, although sometimes small and pointless, are more than their direct effects - and that choice, when available, should always be taken seriously.
I worked for a television station for a long time. After a few years of being there, it was purchased by Sinclair Broadcast Group as part of a huge buying spree that lead them to reach 40% of US...
I worked for a television station for a long time. After a few years of being there, it was purchased by Sinclair Broadcast Group as part of a huge buying spree that lead them to reach 40% of US households with their cleverly disguised as local news right wing segments.
Despite disagreeing with nearly everything they stand for, I stayed. I was constantly on the lookout for a new job, but it took me two years to find one since the job market for video production where I live is relatively small.
I managed to ease my guilt slightly in subtle ways – I'm the one quoted in this Deadspin article. I still feel guilty that I stayed as long as I did.
But you where on the lookout, you did try to, AND you didn't stay by your own volition when the choice was possible. So I wouldn't have guilt about it if I where you. When I was 17 I took work for...
But you where on the lookout, you did try to, AND you didn't stay by your own volition when the choice was possible. So I wouldn't have guilt about it if I where you.
When I was 17 I took work for a telemarketer, I was broke and it was that or "no food". The work consisted of calling people and selling them crap they didn't need - and although it was covered up with "I mean they don't KNOW they need it yet" and similar even then I don't remember being able to square it as anything but trickery. I worked there for half a year and I don't regret it.
Well, I'm glad you didn't act on that impulse because it wouldn't solve anything, but It brings up the question of what should you do? That doesn't sound like someone I would want anything to do...
Well, I'm glad you didn't act on that impulse because it wouldn't solve anything, but It brings up the question of what should you do? That doesn't sound like someone I would want anything to do with, but it can be hard to think of a good response in the moment.
That was my argument too for quite a while (this was... oof 8 years ago?) - what difference does it do? I mean it's not like she would have changed her mind if I slapped her in the face, its not...
That was my argument too for quite a while (this was... oof 8 years ago?) - what difference does it do? I mean it's not like she would have changed her mind if I slapped her in the face, its not like it would have made any difference about it. But the more I have thought about it, the more I realize that I would have felt better about it. That I honestly keep coming back to that memory - her smugly waving away the points made about very factual deaths and chuckling - and I keep regretting it.
I struggle to justify it - but I also struggle to ignore it. Does that make sense?
Yeah, I don't know, in the cases when I act in anger I usually regret it, so I've sworn it off and I would instead unhealthily dwell on what else I could have done.
Yeah, I don't know, in the cases when I act in anger I usually regret it, so I've sworn it off and I would instead unhealthily dwell on what else I could have done.
I think it's true that we should take responsibility for what we build and more generally for our immediate organization's culture, depending of course on your ability to shape that. But there is...
I think it's true that we should take responsibility for what we build and more generally for our immediate organization's culture, depending of course on your ability to shape that.
But there is a danger that it gets stretched far beyond what any one person should take responsibility for, and it's not good for your mental health.
It's easier to see with government organizations. Would you say that a park ranger is responsible for the actions of the IMF, or the CDC, or the Air Force? Or locally, the fire department is responsible for the police department? If you're going to feel guilty every someone in the same enormous organization does something wrong then you aren't going to be able to focus on what you can personally do to make the world a better place.
This is a downside of many large organizations. Both the organizations themselves and their critics promote the myth of the singular entity. It goes both ways. In Google's early years, it was exciting to work at a company that was doing so many amazing things, and when the tide turned, it was depressing to see some of the things that distant people at the same company were doing wrong. And that's one of the reasons I didn't feel much like working there anymore.
But I still think the Go team (for example) should continue to do what they do, to take responsible for helping Go users, and not feel sorry at all about taking Google's money to do it. It would be a sad day if they resigned because of politics unrelated to Go.
The result of everyone taking responsibility for everything is that the organization is consumed by politics. This is a good reason to have sub-organizations with their own identities, and formal separation between them.
I agree that you can’t be responsible for everything that everybody in an organization does. Especially when it’s as massive as something like the U.S. Federal Government or Google. That’s just a...
I agree that you can’t be responsible for everything that everybody in an organization does. Especially when it’s as massive as something like the U.S. Federal Government or Google. That’s just a side effect of the fact that there are so many massive corporations now that have such an outsized influence.
But, I think it’s also good to step back and think about whether or not your employer is putting more good into the world than evil. It might be a gray area or a hard call. It’s just something to consider.
Holding an employee responsible for everything a company with 100,000 employees does is like holding you responsible for everything that happens in your city. You aren't the mayor and you don't...
Holding an employee responsible for everything a company with 100,000 employees does is like holding you responsible for everything that happens in your city. You aren't the mayor and you don't have agency to fix everything that goes wrong. You aren't even in a position to even know everything that goes wrong, and reading about it in the news is often not enough to know what's going on for sure, because often they get it wrong.
May 4th is remembrance day in The Netherlands. On TV they showed images from the second World War. Many of these images showed Jews being escorted away by German soldiers. It was said that many...
May 4th is remembrance day in The Netherlands. On TV they showed images from the second World War. Many of these images showed Jews being escorted away by German soldiers. It was said that many people just stood by idly. Were they in the wrong? Maybe not. Were they fully aware of the atrocities the Nazi's committed? Most likely not. Could they have done more? Probably.
Of course this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.
It's quite possible that some of the people in those images did more, but secretly, and you won't be able to tell from the photos, because they wouldn't do it while the Germans are looking....
It's quite possible that some of the people in those images did more, but secretly, and you won't be able to tell from the photos, because they wouldn't do it while the Germans are looking.
Getting from "something should be done" to "here is what we need to do" is harder than it looks. Effective approaches are often non-obvious. I wish we would talk about that more.
Like today, what more can we do about the virus and it's economic effects? And what can we do to be better prepared for future disasters?
This hits the nail on the head.
To put it into a more cut and dry example: If you work as a programmer or engineer for a company that makes ballistic missiles, you're helping to kill those on the receiving end of those missiles. You might just work in a cubicle writing code for the guidance system and think you're not playing a particularly big part, but you are.
And recent technological advances have helped to make each of us even more efficient and productive. We should use that for good.
I met a developer who was part in creating the guidance systems for Military Drones for SAAB - this was years ago and I still honestly regret not just slapping them right there on the conference main floor. Me and some coworkers just stood around in absurd shock at the callous way this person described their job and the honestly pure mockery they gave to anyone who wondered how they squared that with just "human decency".
Thats the part that gets me I think - that for every finger on the trigger of a gun, there are generals who order the pull, elected politicians that demand the arming and companies more than willing to sell the ammo, the guns, the helmets and the bodybags.
Yeah, it's a really fine line to walk. I once wrote a paper on extracting colors and objects. It was later referenced in another paper about military drones. Nothing in my paper had anything to do with drones or the military. It was just showing how to do some image processing. Am I now culpable because someone else took my work and potentially did something illegal or immoral with it? That seems absurd to me.
I've also worked on lots of different products for editing videos. I'm pretty sure that at some point, organizations like ISIS or Al Queda have made recruiting and/or ransom videos with at least one of these products. Am I on the hook for that, too? Should I not have taken the work because there was the potential for people to do awful things with it?
I think intention and expectation are relevant factors that are being overlooked in this discussion.
Are they? That's kind of why I asked. I'm trying to understand how far people in this discussion think this should go.
Also, do people here think that having a military is immoral? I live in the US and our military has a long checkered history and a lot of current issues, but we do need something and someone to defend our borders. Realistically, that means we need the ability to kill people who would forcibly try to take it from us. Someone has to build those systems and someone has to use them or we're defenseless. So where exactly do you feel the line should be drawn on what programmers in those positions should and shouldn't work on? (And for the record, I would never be able to bring myself to work on such systems. But I do see that unfortunately they are needed, so I can't really blame people who are willing to work on them.)
Yes I think intent and expectation are very relevant to questions of complicity.
I see no difference between designing, crafting, or deploying a weapons system that, for instance, murders children when the organization that the designer and crafter are working for has a history of doing that and have made no indication that they will desist.
I think it also speaks to the prejudices of the creator. I, for one, would have only moderate qualms building ICBMs due to my belief that nuclearization is both inevitable, and reduces the chance of large scale loss of life like another world war. In the other hand, I would not build anti ballistic missile defense systems as those ABM buildup destroys MAD, and increases the chance of a nuclear power attempting to make a first strike on another country. I feel like a lot of people might disagree with those personal principles, and that's OK.
Anyway, we all presumably pay taxes, and half of that goes to baby killers anyway, if we believe in that line of logic. But I don't think the solution is to not pay taxes.
I used that non-specific example to demonstrate the importance of intent and expectation in the discussion of complicity.
I had written something about the US military but then deleted it because I don't feel like despising anyone today.
To be clear, I was asking if they're being overlooked? I'm having a hard time understanding the intent of some of what's being posted. I couldn't tell if the earlier posts were being absolutist (and hence not overlooking those things, just taking a really hard stance against them), or if they were actually being overlooked. But yes, I agree that they are relevant to the questions of complicity.
Well being tasked with “improving guidance systems for military drones” leaves little wiggle room for that reasoning I think. Either you can square it or you can’t.
And your argument is also able to be dragged into its extreme in a similar fashion. “If I don’t someone else will”
(Sidenote it was a “her” not “him”)
I honestly don't think its an excuse.
She knew what they are used for - this is not a secret so at no point could she claim that she wasn't aware then as she is now of what they are for, the effects they have etc. [sidenote: the fact that she was being glib about the effects of them may have made me angrier at the time]
She also had choices - she is a fairly well paid software engineer in a very large and spacious market. She isn't struggling to put food on her table. So there is no force behind the choice.
And waving away the choice by claiming that someone else would do it otherwise is a false dichotomy. Someone will always be able to do anything, but that doesn't mean you and I are allowed to do whatever we like.
Military technologies make their way in to public domain and in a non lethal fashion yes - but its never changes the effect of ones actions. Claiming a possible future good is a hard argument to carry in the light of very concrete current evils.
When I was younger I would have agreed with you I think, but the older I get - the less acceptance I have for it (I honestly don't know why, I am NOT trying to say "Oh you young idealistic fool" or something dishonest like that - I am just not sure WHY I find my self less and less accepting of certain things and way less philosophical about them).
There are actions for which there are no excuses. Being complicit, is to be part at a certain point and I whole heartedly believe that our actions, although sometimes small and pointless, are more than their direct effects - and that choice, when available, should always be taken seriously.
I worked for a television station for a long time. After a few years of being there, it was purchased by Sinclair Broadcast Group as part of a huge buying spree that lead them to reach 40% of US households with their cleverly disguised as local news right wing segments.
Despite disagreeing with nearly everything they stand for, I stayed. I was constantly on the lookout for a new job, but it took me two years to find one since the job market for video production where I live is relatively small.
I managed to ease my guilt slightly in subtle ways – I'm the one quoted in this Deadspin article. I still feel guilty that I stayed as long as I did.
Thankfully, the Tribune deal fell through. If the deal had gone through, they would own local affiliates that could reach more than 70% of Americans.
But you where on the lookout, you did try to, AND you didn't stay by your own volition when the choice was possible. So I wouldn't have guilt about it if I where you.
When I was 17 I took work for a telemarketer, I was broke and it was that or "no food". The work consisted of calling people and selling them crap they didn't need - and although it was covered up with "I mean they don't KNOW they need it yet" and similar even then I don't remember being able to square it as anything but trickery. I worked there for half a year and I don't regret it.
Well, I'm glad you didn't act on that impulse because it wouldn't solve anything, but It brings up the question of what should you do? That doesn't sound like someone I would want anything to do with, but it can be hard to think of a good response in the moment.
That was my argument too for quite a while (this was... oof 8 years ago?) - what difference does it do? I mean it's not like she would have changed her mind if I slapped her in the face, its not like it would have made any difference about it. But the more I have thought about it, the more I realize that I would have felt better about it. That I honestly keep coming back to that memory - her smugly waving away the points made about very factual deaths and chuckling - and I keep regretting it.
I struggle to justify it - but I also struggle to ignore it. Does that make sense?
Yeah, I don't know, in the cases when I act in anger I usually regret it, so I've sworn it off and I would instead unhealthily dwell on what else I could have done.
I think it's true that we should take responsibility for what we build and more generally for our immediate organization's culture, depending of course on your ability to shape that.
But there is a danger that it gets stretched far beyond what any one person should take responsibility for, and it's not good for your mental health.
It's easier to see with government organizations. Would you say that a park ranger is responsible for the actions of the IMF, or the CDC, or the Air Force? Or locally, the fire department is responsible for the police department? If you're going to feel guilty every someone in the same enormous organization does something wrong then you aren't going to be able to focus on what you can personally do to make the world a better place.
This is a downside of many large organizations. Both the organizations themselves and their critics promote the myth of the singular entity. It goes both ways. In Google's early years, it was exciting to work at a company that was doing so many amazing things, and when the tide turned, it was depressing to see some of the things that distant people at the same company were doing wrong. And that's one of the reasons I didn't feel much like working there anymore.
But I still think the Go team (for example) should continue to do what they do, to take responsible for helping Go users, and not feel sorry at all about taking Google's money to do it. It would be a sad day if they resigned because of politics unrelated to Go.
The result of everyone taking responsibility for everything is that the organization is consumed by politics. This is a good reason to have sub-organizations with their own identities, and formal separation between them.
I agree that you can’t be responsible for everything that everybody in an organization does. Especially when it’s as massive as something like the U.S. Federal Government or Google. That’s just a side effect of the fact that there are so many massive corporations now that have such an outsized influence.
But, I think it’s also good to step back and think about whether or not your employer is putting more good into the world than evil. It might be a gray area or a hard call. It’s just something to consider.
Holding an employee responsible for everything a company with 100,000 employees does is like holding you responsible for everything that happens in your city. You aren't the mayor and you don't have agency to fix everything that goes wrong. You aren't even in a position to even know everything that goes wrong, and reading about it in the news is often not enough to know what's going on for sure, because often they get it wrong.
May 4th is remembrance day in The Netherlands. On TV they showed images from the second World War. Many of these images showed Jews being escorted away by German soldiers. It was said that many people just stood by idly. Were they in the wrong? Maybe not. Were they fully aware of the atrocities the Nazi's committed? Most likely not. Could they have done more? Probably.
Of course this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.
It's quite possible that some of the people in those images did more, but secretly, and you won't be able to tell from the photos, because they wouldn't do it while the Germans are looking.
Getting from "something should be done" to "here is what we need to do" is harder than it looks. Effective approaches are often non-obvious. I wish we would talk about that more.
Like today, what more can we do about the virus and it's economic effects? And what can we do to be better prepared for future disasters?