The culture at large is going to do what it does. There is way to support liberty and deny the right to be a ninny.
But technology should be about the code. It is better to be diverse, because being a cool, gentle, adult human being is simply the Golden Rule applied; rather than flogging diversity.
We see endless codes of conduct, statistical analyses, and innocents getting thrashed for some purely Kafka-esque infraction.
I would say: "to hell with that" except that in many ways, hell has arrived.
There is NO way to support liberty and deny the right to be a ninny.
Repackaged, my point is that once I set myself up un control of definitions, I can always label your behavior a threat to public safety and effectively jail you.
Should it?
Technology doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is used by people.
Ignoring that fact doesn't make the ethical implication of the technology magically go away.
> It is better to be diverse, because being a cool, gentle, adult human being is simply the Golden Rule applied
Science does not get a special exception to turn off one's moral compass and ignore the ethical impact of research and publication.
Any formulation of my point is that action excels words.
The biggest hill that Domingos has staked out is that asking researchers to include a discussion of impacts and potential abuse of systems to be "wasteful" and "ill-conveived"[0]. Also, he has decided to make a stand on the hill that the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems should not go by the acronym NeurIPS[1].
[0] https://twitter.com/pmddomingos/status/1338204976733032450
[1]https://twitter.com/pmddomingos/status/1337594183033389058