> That's just factually wrong. Mathematics. Philosophers. Logicians. All the living and dead theorists who built the abstract foundations essential for the functioning of our machines. People who deal entirely in the world of the abstract. You don't develop a passion for abstraction because you want something out of reality. You develop a passion for abstraction because reality is sometimes terrible.
We don't have moral discussions about the discovery of a new law of physics or a mathematical lemma. This only becomes an issue when we can see how it can be applied to some aim. Thus if there were no engineers nobody would consider the scientists moral obligations with the exception of their experiments themselves causing harm.
The argument to limiting science is that engineers might take it and create some terrible machine with it. Perhaps the most notorious example being a nuclear bomb.
I believe we agree on the role of science, I don't think we agree on what their culpability should be.
> We don't have moral discussions about the discovery of a new law of physics or a mathematical lemma.
Abstraction affects mental functionality. It forms expectations by designing a language in which the present can be expected to be predicted within some objective, measurable tolerance. The problem, always has been, and always will be - is that people can't be measured and tested like machines.
> This only becomes an issue when we can see how it can be applied to some aim.
So yes. That's correct, that's the terrible thing that can be observed and measured when it happens. Prevention is important.
> Thus if there were no engineers nobody would consider the scientists moral obligations with the exception of their experiments themselves causing harm.
Sorry, no, that again, ridiculous. You think that way. Not everyone thinks the same. Intent. Experimentation is intended to discover in a controlled environment while giving heavy weight to moral implications. People choose to opt in to scientific studies. People trust that process when they make that decision.
> The argument to limiting science is that engineers might take it and create some terrible machine with it. Perhaps the most notorious example being a nuclear bomb.
Yes, and what makes us think we are so evolved and so advanced to believe we can't accidentally create something similar with present technology - lacking awareness to it's creation? Evolution won't protect us against our own idiocy.
Reasoning about computation affects cognition, which has real world consequences that extend to everything else that is not reasoning about computation. That's just all there is to it.
> I believe we agree on the role of science, I don't think we agree on what their culpability should be.
They should be able to talk about personal, first hand experiences openly without being professionally attacked, first. Second, they should be able to talk about existing problems without fear of whose bottom line it might affect. There should not be blame in systems where everything is hard as heck to understand. Obligation to the truth - yes. Blame for the belief that there was the intent to create a problem by virtue of uncovering one? No. That has shortsightedness written all over it.
I would like to engage more substantively with you, but I don't think I understand where you stand on this issue. Do you agree or disagree with the suggestions in the original article?
> Brent Hecht has a controversial proposal: the computer-science community should change its peer-review process to ensure that researchers disclose any possible negative societal consequences of their work in papers, or risk rejection.
Agreed.
> The idea is not to try to predict the future, but, on the basis of the literature, to identify the expected side effects or unintended uses of this technology.
Agreed.
> No, we’re not saying they should reject a paper with extensive negative impacts — just that all negative impacts should be disclosed.
Agreed.
> But we’re moving towards a more iterative, dialogue-based process of review, and reviewers would need to cite rigorous reasons for their concerns, so I don’t think that should be much of a worry. If a few papers get rejected and resubmitted six months later and, as a result, our field has an arc of innovation towards positive impact, then I’m not too worried. Another critique was that it’s so hard to predict impacts that we shouldn’t even try. We all agree it’s hard and that we’re going to miss tonnes of them, but even if we catch just 1% or 5%, it’s worth it.
Agreed.
> We need to be saying, based on existing evidence, what is the confidence that a given innovation will have a side effect? And if it’s above a certain threshold, we need to talk about it.
Agreed.
> We believe that in most cases, no changes are necessary for any peer reviewers to adopt our recommendations — it is already in their existing mandate to ensure intellectual rigour in all parts of the paper. It’s just that this aspect of the mandate dramatically underused.
Agreed.
> Then, the gatekeepers are the press, and it’s up to them to ask what the negative impacts of the technology are.
Agreed.
> Disclosing negative impacts is not just an end in itself, but a public statement of new problems that need to be solved. We need to bend the incentives in computer science towards making the net impact of innovations positive. When we retire will we tell our grandchildren, like those in the oil and gas industry: “We were just developing products and doing what we were told”? Or can we be the generation that finally took the reins on computing innovation and guided it towards positive impact?
Edit: I want to say thank you for your respectful tone in spite of my slightly aggressive(?) one. I'm grateful to people like you because it reminds me, it matters a lot.
> The idea is not to try to predict the future, but, on the basis of the literature, to identify the expected side effects or unintended uses of this technology.
What will you do with this information?
> No, we’re not saying they should reject a paper with extensive negative impacts — just that all negative impacts should be disclosed.
So at best its useless, and at worst it serves to fuel the imaginations of those who would use it for evil.
> our field has an arc of innovation towards positive impact
How would this change the course of innovation? The only way I can see is if its used to censor.
> We need to be saying, based on existing evidence, what is the confidence that a given innovation will have a side effect? And if it’s above a certain threshold, we need to talk about it.
Why is a specialist in a specific technology qualified to determine negative societal outcomes of it? Human societies are extremely complex systems and even those specialized in it have poor predictive track records.
> Then, the gatekeepers are the press, and it’s up to them to ask what the negative impacts of the technology are.
Why would the press have this power? They've never had such substantial control before. Governments have been able to suppress independent nuclear research in the most extreme case but the laws surrounding that are not exactly proven. If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press?
If I was in the position of a researcher, I would talk to people it affects directly or try to communicate my awareness to people who are in a similar interdisciplinary dilemma who can then communicate their awareness to people who are 'on the ground' such that the problems both researchers have awareness of can be identified and then resolved in real life. The point is progress, one direction that moves forwards, not backwards or cycles. Obviously this can be a state of mind one can choose to see or ignore - see the cycles only or notice the differences with positive improvement universally in mind. But I'm one person, stuff like this will always be is a group effort.
> So at best its useless, and at worst it serves to fuel the imaginations of those who would use it for evil.
Group effort, squish evil. Evil is not something I know how to identify though, that's always been the dilemma. The real evil seems to be the thing that actually completely extinguishes your existence entirely, death(?).
> How would this change the course of innovation? The only way I can see is if its used to censor.
I don't think the intent is to censor, I think the intent is to alleviate existing censoring of problems people are aware of but have no way of speaking about.
> Why is a specialist in a specific technology qualified to determine negative societal outcomes of it? Human societies are extremely complex systems and even those specialized in it have poor predictive track records.
Maybe they have some first hand experience that they feel they would be embarrassed, ashamed, or rejected from disclosing that information because the association of being personally identified with a given experience is just something not accepted, presently, professionally. Relegated to therapy, even though, there might be actual problems people have some awareness of. Fear of being implicated as being the cause rather than the solution.
> Why would the press have this power? They've never had such substantial control before. Governments have been able to suppress independent nuclear research in the most extreme case but the laws surrounding that are not exactly proven. If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press?
It's not power. It's trust. It's saying, researcher talking to reporter, 'hey if we make mistakes, point them out, because we won't always be able to see every error we make, especially when we must work in a system that requires minimal error to be seen as a function of our own approval mechanic.'. Errors in knowledge systems that function off of principles that are resonant of their own structure - that leads to destabilization of structure. There has to be some tolerance for making error, that's give and take, you see me make errors, I don't see myself making them, point them out. That's the trust given to the press. Speak up.
> If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press?
Bodies that self regulate must regulate one another. Checks and balances.
We don't have moral discussions about the discovery of a new law of physics or a mathematical lemma. This only becomes an issue when we can see how it can be applied to some aim. Thus if there were no engineers nobody would consider the scientists moral obligations with the exception of their experiments themselves causing harm.
The argument to limiting science is that engineers might take it and create some terrible machine with it. Perhaps the most notorious example being a nuclear bomb.
I believe we agree on the role of science, I don't think we agree on what their culpability should be.