tldr: many great scientific advancement were created by well-intentioned researchers who were subsequently shocked to find their work applied to military, often to the great detriment of mankind.
The unwritten implication is that this applies to AI, as well. I find it hard to disagree. I don't know what to do about it.
The HN crowd is elated that we can finally finish our side projects, while the ruling class is already using AI to subvert democracy, spread misinformation, and develop weapons. "If we don't build these weapons, someone else will." If we can learn nothing else from history, we should learn that you can't turn back the clock.
I think both things can simultaneously be true. There is a certain inevitability to technological progress. Once you reach a critical mass of collective knowledge, the resulting "thing" will get developed. If not by you, then by someone else.
But also, inevitability is not an argument for complicity. If you personally decide to work on bioweapons, I don't think you can shrug and say "eh, it was going to happen either way". As tech workers, we've really mastered the art of coming up with justifications for what essentially just boils down to "all my friends have gotten rich and now it's my turn".
I've met hundreds of sharp engineers from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. None of them could look me straight in the eye and say "yeah, you know, what we're doing with ad tech is actually good". They just always had an explanation along the lines of "it's not that bad, and besides, if we don't do it, someone else will, and we're the good guys here".
> besides, if we don't do it, someone else will, and we're the good guys here".
It's funny that people justify themselves that way considering it's the literal phrase is discussed in every ethics 101 course... and not because a bunch of good people were saying it...
If the comments on this website are any indication I'd wager a great many people in tech haven't spent even a single minute of their lives seriously thinking about ethics, nevermind studying ethics in a classroom
I guess that's why I'm always angry when I'm reading comments here
I know I don't have all the answers, but I minored in philosophy in school. I studied ethics quite a lot and being ethical has always been very important to me
I never had 20 years of "let's burn down everything in my way as long as it pays well"
That has probably more to do with you bank account digits.
I'm on the inverse moral ladder currently, specially as more and more services are privatized (public health here is on fast-track to be americanized).
I see so many rich people act in awfull manner just to get mote money ... so no.
People who make ethical decisions end up with less money on average. But that is it, poor people and low paid people and average paid techies make ethical decisions all the time.
It really did not have anything to do with money. Obviously I make more money now than in my “junior” days. I just did not give a F.
I worked for Monsanto, I mean as evil of a company as you’d find (during that time, nothing compared to today’s Big Tech evil). I just honestly did not give a F at all.
I'm glad you got better (I don't think this is said often enough. People change, and I'm glad you changed in this direction rather than the other). If you write about your path I'd read it.
I really believe the biggest lie everyone believes is that evil is only created by those that are evil. That evil is easy to identify. It's that love for simplicity that makes it persist.
Were it so easy to identify, as so many claim, then it seems only one of two situations seems likely: most people are evil or most people are unwilling to let evil persist (which may not make them evil, but surely does not make them good).
Were evil easy to identify and most people not evil (good or neutral), then surely evil would be easy to eliminate and we wouldn't have a cliché about the road to hell bring paved with good intentions.
Evil persists because we believe we'd be evil were we to let it to. The same mechanism for self defense is used even by the worst. For the greater good, right?
Reminds me a quote from Gibson's Spook Country: "That's something that tends to happen with new technologies generally: the most interesting applications turn up on the battlefield, or in a gallery."
That’s a weird tldr and not my takeaway. More like “scientists convinced their new ultra destructive weapon is sure to bring about peace this time around”. Spoiler: it does not. Arguably maybe nuclear weapons but even then I’d say the use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict hasn’t really been tested yet and people are generally hesitant to do so, preferring instead illegal chemical and biological warfare.
> were created by well-intentioned researchers who were subsequently shocked to find their work applied to military
oh please.
Most scientific development especially root-node stuff has been funded and kick-started by the military for centuries. You can't take funds from DARPA and then be shocked to see the air force using it. You can't work at ecole polytechnique and be shocked to see your work being used in libya.
Humans would have never gone to space [as quick and as at much scale as they did] if they didn't want spy satellites and ICBMs.
Shannon invented a whole new field while working with money earmarked for cryptography work in WW2.
Machine translation was first posed and funded by anyone for russian-english translation - 1949 Warren Weaver memo at the Rockefeller Foundation.
As the first comment I linked mentions, even many medicines were developed only cos soldiers were dying in theater, not because normal people were dying at home. So it's not just limited to tech.
> the ruling class
No, we don't get to deflect blame like that. If we take money from DARPA/similar to invent something, we are part of the system and are responsible. Everyone involved in the space race in the 50s, Transit (sat nav) in the 60s knew it was to make ICBMs. The creator of waymo surely read that DARPA document I linked in my second comment. And need I mention that oppenheimer knew why nuclear energy was being harnessed :) You can't "oh the evil few tricking the innocent majority, what ever will they do" it away.
A logically defensible position might be that you agree that war is a timeless motivation and that you are fine with stuff being used for military purposes and continue to develop the technology with government money, OR not taking any money from the government. There are not that many others that aren't hypocritical.
The unwritten implication is that this applies to AI, as well. I find it hard to disagree. I don't know what to do about it.
The HN crowd is elated that we can finally finish our side projects, while the ruling class is already using AI to subvert democracy, spread misinformation, and develop weapons. "If we don't build these weapons, someone else will." If we can learn nothing else from history, we should learn that you can't turn back the clock.