Hacker News Reader

See in your case with the military you can directly say, hey my code will be used to bomb other people possibly. But in today's times it isn't (I am sure even then) so cut and dry. I worked in AdTech industry (like 60% of the bay area techies). So the ad tech I write gets shown to millions/billions. What about ads influencing elections and then politicians waging wars? Anti-vax ads which influence people and then kill them. Scam ads. Insurance ads and then people not getting cancer meds from the same insurance. Am I responsible for those deaths? I would say Yes.

But what is the option? I feel each of us wants to draw a line based off of our morality but the circumstances don't allow us to stick to it (still gotta pay rent)

We are all on a Titanic the way I see it. It's just the DARPA guy is gonna sink first. Rest of us are just pretending to be Jack trying to be the last ones to go.

Well you cannot be responsible for adults' discernment or their critical thinking. If those same ads are being shown to children that would be different.

I don't see this as a binary thing. Legally we tend to draw a clear line between child and adult for pragmatic purposes, but I don't think my responsibility of intent disappears just because someone hits a magical number. I have steered clear of various gambling / "gaming" jobs which have had silly high salaries as a result; I don't in any way want to participate in things which are meant to play the weak points of the human psyche like a harp, for profit.

But they are?

And it's a fallacy to assume that critical thinking is something that you're born with. In addition to the media landscape being completely ingrained into society. I can't really escape recommender engines anymore when consuming media.

If your exposure to media is curated since you were born, how are you going to tell if you're being deceived? It's pretty much the allegory of the cave.

This isn't really the moral dilemma you make it out to be.

"But what is the option?"

Don't see money as the only goal?

Otherwise it ain't black and white.

There are forms of advertisment that are not so bad and there is a need for kill devices since there are lots of other existing kill devices. But this ad technology and this actual war ministry who take pride in revoking all "woke shit" like "rules of engagement" - I would not work for. There is other work, even if it pays less, but money ain't everything.

> Don't see money as the only goal?

That’s easy to say when you have money, it kind of sounds like “let them eat cake”

Do you claim there are only unethical income choices? Or do you claim your expected standard of income comes only with unethical offers?

I think that you can find something morally wrong with most companies or practices within these companies.

Oh if you are looking for dirt, you can find dirt allmost anywhere, but im gemeral I do see a difference in making a website for a kindergarten, vs applying the most efficient tech to track and target children with manipulative ads.

Sure, but maybe you'll have to ad dark patterns, track users or create ad campaigns yourself for this kindergarten website.

Maybe that kindergarten want to cut food and people costs to make more money. Which could lead to very real consequences for the kids as well.

Yes and if you have ethics then you can say no. Also I never saw a Kindergarten website that even remotely did this.

Do you seriously believe that your only alternative is to work building ads or weapons?

> But what is the option? I feel each of us wants to draw a line based off of our morality but the circumstances don't allow us to stick to it (still gotta pay rent)

I was with you up to this point, but when you say "life is to hard to stay moral" I am thinking about how buying the wrong shampoo contributes to micro plastic in the ocean, or how buying a fitting jeans that is not exploiting labor is an extremely time intensive endeavor, or how avocados may be vegan but often produced unsustainable. Basically I thought you were making this point from The Good Place https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lci6P1-jMV8 .

But when you are working in IT, an industry that is generally still very well of, avoiding an employer that is actively making the world a worse place, is a low bar to cross. It's just one decision every few years, which also is comparatively easy to research (you are probably doing it as your normal preparation for the job interview anyway) and the impact of that decision is enormous in comparison to most other decisions you make, so it's well worth it to ponder a bit.

I think moral purity tests for work places is a delicate and tough question event for software development.

Which work places would you feel are acceptable?

What about a bank? They invest or loan money to weapons manufacturers.

What about a renewable energy company? What if that company accepted investment with funds from Saudi Arabia / UAE / Qatar?

Etc.

Given the atomization and layering of work, this has become much harder to truly judge. Ten years ago I was excited to join a customer feedback platform - what could be better than helping companies understand their customers and provide better services and products? You can probably see where this is going, but inevitably the tools were just used to better tweak product profitability and eliminate end customer surplus, to the customer company’s benefit. And they were used by the likes of draft kings et al along with the Starbucks and Nikes of the world. I hear people claim that, in capitalism, no one hands are clean, and I am inclined to agree.

The option is to quit your job and go get a different one. It amazes me that people choose to work at Meta etc. I mean, it’s good for them, but they are choosing a bit more money whilst harming the rest of society. That’s a really bold move, to say that you just don’t care about other people.

Agreed. You can quit. That is always an option. "Gotta pay the bills" is definitely valid for some small subset of the us population but that certainly doesn't apply to software engineers in a hub like the bay or seattle. These people delude themselves into thinking they "must" have their ridiculous Meta pay to pay for their $2.5M house and their current lifestyle. Golden handcuffs and turn the blind eye to what they are doing.

> So the ad tech I write gets shown to millions/billions. What about ads influencing elections and then politicians waging wars? Anti-vax ads which influence people and then kill them. Scam ads. Insurance ads and then people not getting cancer meds from the same insurance.

Don't forget ICE and other government agencies using the bidstream data to track the location and behavior of immigrants, dissidents, etc, so they can be tracked down and arrested and sent to the gulag.

Hi, I work in edtech.

There are hundreds of sectors and industries that don't have net negative effects on society and involve software development.

My pet theory is that this has been accelerated due to the cultural rejection of the humanities as worthy of study.

Orwell wrote about this: https://orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien

> "The fact is that a mere training in one or more of the exact sciences, even combined with very high gifts, is no guarantee of a humane or sceptical outlook."

>” I inquired why founders, CEOs or developers weren't in part of the discussion or in attendance? Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion.”

This seems more like credentialist arrogance than a well-reasoned judgment.

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?

That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun

As Tom Lehrer sang:

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun.

Nothing has destroyed my faith in humanity more than the frantic race to the bottom of the AI insanity the last couple years. You can feel the frenzied greed in the air, masses of investors piling over each other to get a piece of the golden pie at any cost. It’s fucking disgusting.

Which is why on a human level I have zero respect for many CEOs. The world would be a better place without them and they are actively working on making it worse. In fact I believe the rest of the tribe should punish them for this anti-social behavior to disincentivize it in the future.

The one industry that people dislike that I haven’t been in is war. I hope to be in weapons one day. The ethics are pretty straightforward to me: kill as few as possible to protect your interests; and that may be many people; but it is not really that many people.

Anyway, I won’t guess at your friend’s motivation but if you gave me the ability to make America’s industry better at prosecuting war you’d better believe I’d do it with great enthusiasm.

Besides I’ve been around long enough to know that when the rubber hits the road the ethical people will find their way rapidly to the Paradox of Tolerance and suddenly find that violence is highly desirable. I find this kind of high variance behaviour is undesirable and leads to unhappiness all around.

What if a new weapons technology was developed by an adversary but not developed by your country. Then it was used to attack and perhaps conquer your country? Or cause an unduly higher number of casualties due to disparity of force?

> Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion.

With a gate keeping attitude like that, are you really surprised engineers don’t want to participate?

The problem as stated isn't finding interested engineers, but qualified ones. Reframing it as just about appeal is disingenuous.

Why would an anyone need prequalification to walk into a room and sit in an audience while lawyers talk about stuff on stage? Just let them in.

There is no such thing as “qualified”. The engineers actually doing the work definitely get a seat at the table, otherwise it’s an academic circle jerk detached from reality.

That's just patently false. Tons of executives and board members in industry absolutely care. Some are in it just for philanthropic purposes.

Where are they? The vast majority of executive and board members are kissing every inch of this administration's ass.

It's best to work with the system, while you think you can still influence it.

Oh? Name them, with receipts for actions taken, not vague gestures towards morality.

The actual logical end point of most of the 'for the good of humanity' folks in the bay area is:

'Only I can be trusted with the money, power, and weapons that I believe will break the world, but I promise it is for the best. No system or power should hold me to account in the event I am wrong or change my mind. Trust me.'

I know many of them personally, and I will not name any of them, so that virtue-signaling radical leftists on the internet cannot harass them.

Absolute burn. But accurate.

I cannot stand this kind of absolute thinking from the left or right. It’s usually just cope for personal deficiencies.

> what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing?

This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West. If the US wasn't so good at producing killing machines in WW2, you wouldn't be here to complain about DARPA ethics.

Instead of having engineers develop the most advanced machines for killing (i.e. protecting the West) such people go into producing the most addictive content delivery systems, destroying the brains of minors.

Why are those the only two options?

>This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West

Hell yeah

What is this “West” that you care so much about?

> This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West.

He specifically said autonomous killing machines. You understand the difference right?

Reread the original quote:

"what if the code you write OR autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing"

We’re the bad guys. We were only the “good guys” for like 4 years in the 1940s and we still did internment camps. Everyone is costing off that 80 year old aura to justify a death machine.