Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Norbert Weiner is a standout of modern computing/mathematics because he took a principled stand on the consequences of his research, and decided to move fields because he didn't want his work to directly relate to military applications.

There are very few people of his standing in science at that time, and I believe since, with the fortitude to resist temptation to take the high paying gig despite the moral implications. Joseph Rotblat comes to mind.

View on HN

And let's not forget that Bertrand Russell was also a very principled man - he was imprisoned for his pacifism during World War I and for his involvement in anti-nuclear campaigning in 1961 (aged 89!).

Lol there are people that do this every day. Either they take a principled stand against tech and turn down lucrative research roles in industry, or, for example, they turn down funding from the military; I switched PhD programs last year because I did not want to work on object detection for the army. In doing so I forewent a very nice fellowship. I don't say this because I want a pat on the back but just to demonstrate that it's very common.

... of his standing.

Part of the issue might be that those who choose the more moral course don't get the large government grants and military funding, which means that they don't get well known, not because they aren't just as talented but because of lack of funds. So scientists of standing may self select for the kind of person who will do anything for money and fame. If society had more funding for principled causes, or celebrated those with them, we might see more scientists with standing (i.e. well-known) who also stuck to their principles.

i'm not sure why you think it's harder for someone "of his standing" to turn down opportunities. the marginal utility for him is much lower than for grad students that have to choose between RAships and TAships or fresh PhDs that have to choose between risky tenure track grinds and lucrative industry roles.

I don't think its hard. I just think they don't. I think it's really sad how few senior scientists with standing do this. They seem to lack the fortitude to do something, which isn't that hard when it comes down to it.

I don't blame fresh starts who go for the lucrative roles, they need the money. Once you're established, finding a hill to stand on and choosing to stand on it seems to get .. less likely?

You made the call, good for you. I admire that. I wish more people with established status did, and said so.

Am I missing something? is there a lot of news out there about CompSci and AI profs sticking it to the man (faang) about things? I don't see it, and thats what I'm responding to here. Norbert Weiner was apex in his field. He looked at what was going to happen with it, and decided to stop feeding the beast. Where's the equivalent behavour from his peer-set in todays world?

>CompSci and AI profs sticking it to the man (faang) about things

there are very frequently articles/gossip on quittings/firings of famous researchers. timnit gebru is a recent example.

>Norbert Weiner was apex in his field.

i wouldn't be so quick to lionize him - he was also not very kind to walter pitts and possibly contributed to his suicide

http://nautil.us/issue/21/information/the-man-who-tried-to-r...

> he was also not very kind to walter pitts and possibly contributed to his suicide

Wiener's wife told him a lie about Pitts. She invented an indecency involving Wiender's daugher. Both Wiener and Pitts never found out the truth about who ended their relationship.

And how do we know that it was a lie? Did she admit it later? If she did, what were the reasons to believe her recantation over her accusation? Did the daughter say it was a lie later in life?

All I know from the article is that Wiener, a very smart person, thought the accusation was credible enough at the time to completely cut off people who were very important to him personally and intellectually. I also know that those people accused were very heavy drinkers.

It's safer to say we don't know anything about the veracity of the claim unless the reference offered some sort of material alibi.

I think it's noble from a personal perspective but realistically all developments made in CV are eventually going to be used in military applications anyway.

Was it a moral stance or the fact he had a great detestation of human suffering, as alluded to in the article. Someone of that brilliance would quite easily be able to draw the link between their work and future suffering.

It's possible this is a moral stance but I'm not so sure, it some what feels like a pain reaction. I must admit I've had the same thought about my own actions, I hate to see people suffer too the point where it has a pain like sensation, If I've been the cause of it I try to rectified quickly, is this morality?

Well, we often talk about morality in terms of our emotional and physical response - e.g. revulsion ('disgusting behaviour'), fear ('recoiling in horror') and pain ('pangs of conscience'), etc. It's also pretty difficult to determine whether Wiener's detestation of suffering was the cause of his moral stance or vice versa.

I would argue that whatever the associated reaction/cause, the outcome is a moral stance as it influenced his decisions based on the consequences his actions might have on other people. OTOH, if Wiener felt bad about other people's suffering but it didn't affect his choices, it wouldn't be a moral stance.

There is an exploration of this train of thought in Frank Herbert's novel "Whipping Star", where a criminal condemned to a Clockwork-Orange-style conditioning to abhor pain and suffering nevertheless finds a way to commit murder by exploiting a truly alien being with no human-understandable concept of suffering.

Still, I think in non sci-fi scenarios, an abhorrence for suffering and moral behavior are very much linked, if not perfectly equal.

He thought and wrote about such matters with some depth, though he wasn't that worldly wise. I still liked his books like "The Human Use Of Human Beings" very much. He also wrote a novel about a patent troll, called "The Tempter", in 1959!

I think you need to define what you consider a “moral stance” to be, before one can answer whether or not it was one.

Do you have a source for this? I have been reading a fair amount on information theory, cybernetics, and Wiener lately, and I haven’t seen this mentioned, at least not yet.

In fact, the sources I’ve read said he was quite enthusiastic about helping out for both WWI and WWII.

For example:

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/the-absent-minded-father-of-...

This was postwar. Like many scientists, He viewed the second world war as a "just" war, but the cold-war? less so.

Gotcha. Thanks for the time period reference, as I haven't gotten to sources that cover that yet.

He did take that stance later in life but he started his work in cybernetics in a project intended to improve anti-aircraft targeting during WWII.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com