Hacker News Reader

Comment by BrandonM | Hacker News Reader

I’m not sure enough people actually read the article, though. Here’s what the person proposing this change said:

> In my first ever AI class, we learned about how a system had been developed to automate something that had previously been a person’s job. Everyone said, “Isn’t this amazing?” — but I was concerned about who did these jobs. It stuck with me that no one else’s ears perked up at the significant downside to this very cool invention.

Statements like that are frightening to me. It’s incredibly hard to define “negative“ in a reasonable way, and I guarantee you that someone else is going to define it in a way you don’t like.

What’s the negative impact of the recent discovery of a non-quantum recommendation algorithm on the field of quantum computing? Should the young researcher have spent time considering and detailing that?

View on HN

> What’s the negative impact of the recent discovery of a non-quantum recommendation algorithm on the field of quantum computing? Should the young researcher have spent time considering and detailing that?

If we consider the goal of research to improve society, then yes, I think it's reasonable to expect a researcher to spend some time considering whether what they're doing is going to actually improve society. In biology, most funding agencies require you to take a brief (~8-10 hours of class time) course on the responsible conduct of research, even if you aren't doing any human subjects research.

In the specific case you gave of the non-quantum recommendation algorithm, the negative impacts should be more or less the same as the impacts of the quantum algorithm, but with less of a barrier to entry. And even the person proposing this acknowledges: "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."

I think in the case mentioned, the implication is that advertisers would be better equipped to target us with ads – which is a fair point.

But why must we burden the theorists with ethics, and not the programmers or companies who bring that theory into the real world?

Seems like Nature is encouraging modern-day Ludditism. We have a historical perspective to reject this out of hand: workers are now much better off than in the pre-industrial period. And yes, I understand that the past does not predict the future, but that cuts both ways. As a rule doom and gloom predictions do not age well.

Why is that statement so frightening to you?

Because it highlights exactly how broad the definition of “negative” can be. I grew up in a family of blue collar workers. My uncle worked at steel mill that shut down. Perhaps with some automation it could have at least stayed open. Regardless, he eventually found a new rewarding job.

My dad is out of a job now, too, but that’s because he got hurt at work, multiple times. He has had back issues my entire life because he got hurt at work.

The person proposing a consideration of negative consequences was “inspired” by jobs being automated away. Whether a researcher has considered the negative consequences enough will be determined by peer reviewers who have their own political leanings and potential agendas. In the end, I would expect the process to become completely subverted, without accomplishing much along the way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com