Hacker News Reader

Comment by thesuperbigfrog | Hacker News Reader

"It is unethical unless your library is in opposition to some other oppression."

One person's 'freedom fighter' is another person's terrorist.

These ethics guidelines strike me as well-intentioned, but naïve.

"If you write something innocent and later find out that it is being used for evil, you are now obligated to do something about that. You can’t ignore it or say you didn't know. You are now stuck and have to do your best to make that situation better."

If you create a library and a state-sponsored hacking group uses it, what are you expected to do? Call them out? It is not like other users of your library would associate you with the hacking group. Anytime a general purpose tool is released a devious creative mind might find a way to use it that the original creator did not think of.

View on HN

I think part of the idea is to be careful about what you put into the world in the first place. On the spectrum of [ basic utilities ---- well if I didn't write it someone else would have ] you can perhaps gain some comfort if you are towards the basic utilities? There's a know it when you see it difference between a folder navigator and analytics platform for doxxing dissidents.

>> There's a know it when you see it difference between a folder navigator and analytics platform for doxxing dissidents.

True, but tools are becoming more sophisticated and different people have different definitions.

Sophisticated tools like large language models have many capabilities that their creators did not envision.

Different definitions mean that one person's 'doxxing dissidents' is another person's 'fighting domestic terrorism'.

Good tools are easy to repurpose for many uses and causes, both good and bad.

A sword can be wielded by a knight to defend the weak and innocent and serve king and country. The same sword can brandished by a pirate to kill, plunder, and destroy. Should we ascribe the good or bad done with the sword to the swordsmith who forged it? I say 'No.' The bearer of the sword is responsible for how the sword is used.

>A sword can be wielded by a knight to defend the weak and innocent and serve king and country.

If you read about medieval warfare you'll see knights often used their swords on the weak and innocent at the behest of their lord. If you were a medieval blacksmith making swords during wartime, a good percent of them would end up being used for what we today would consider atrocities.

Not that there weren't ethical uses for swords too.

Yea I agree on swords. What about tools for torture?

>> What about tools for torture?

Only if there are ethical uses for such tools.

One could make a hypothetical argument that if a known terrorist planted a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent people and the terrorist was caught before the bomb exploded it might be considered "for the greater good" to use extreme measures to find out where the bomb is and how to disarm it.

Yes, it is a contrived example, but some nations have had to make similar decisions. I am not saying that I agree with such choices, but I have never faced such a decision. It's hard to know what the best answer is in such difficult circumstances.

Is it right to torture people? No.

Is it right to let innocent people die? No.

So what is the ethically correct choice?

> One could make a hypothetical argument that if a known terrorist planted a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent people and the terrorist was caught before the bomb exploded it might be considered "for the greater good" to use extreme measures to find out where the bomb is and how to disarm it.

Which is a fun scenario to contemplate for entertainment, but decades of research and a fair amount of rather upsetting empirical evidence shows that torture does not actually work.

All those stories where torture is used to get information? Just stories.

Jack Bauer? A fictional character.

If you want to get information out of otherwise-hostile people, you need to make a connection with them. You need them to trust you.

Torture is only good at establishing dominance and breaking people's spirit. People will tell you anything they think you want to hear to stop torture, regardless of whether it's true.

> So what is the ethically correct choice?

Easy. Don't torture people. It has no positive uses.

A dentist drill can be used to inflict horrific pain on people. As can pliers. As can a hammer and nails. A battery and electrical wires can also be used to inflict pain.

All of these have very legitimate uses, and all of them have been used for torture.

I wouldn't call those tools for torture. Those are tools that may be used for torture. Now the supplier of the tools may or may not know who they are supplying and for what ends but I think there may be some ethics on the supply side of the equation too!

> There's a know it when you see it difference between a folder navigator and analytics platform for doxxing dissidents.

Yes, but there's a "know it when you see it difference" between most real life activity and straw men, too.

The less like straw men the arguments are, the harder they are to discern from reality.

So...the inventors of the internet should consider the consequences of kiddie p0rn?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com