"As a scientist, I must follow my obligation to the truth, reporting what I find in my experiments, whether I like the results or not. My focus is not on determining whether I like or approve of something; it matters only that I can unveil it."
I get the scientist part, the dispassionate reporter of what happened, regardless of what I want to have happened. That last phrase though - "it matters only that I can unveil it" - bothers me. I think this is a fundamental error of science. The pendulum has swung too far, to say that it is not only ok, but indeed required to ignore morality. To not ask even "should I be attempting to unveil" this. The opposite side of the spectrum is dangerous as well (not venturing into questions ever, because of overly strict moral codes or dogmas).
Interesting to see that an AI researcher holds much the same set of fears I'd expect many computer science type workers to hold. I was expecting a set of counter-culture fears instead of what I consider the "typical" positions.
1 comment
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 12.2 ms ] threadI get the scientist part, the dispassionate reporter of what happened, regardless of what I want to have happened. That last phrase though - "it matters only that I can unveil it" - bothers me. I think this is a fundamental error of science. The pendulum has swung too far, to say that it is not only ok, but indeed required to ignore morality. To not ask even "should I be attempting to unveil" this. The opposite side of the spectrum is dangerous as well (not venturing into questions ever, because of overly strict moral codes or dogmas).
Interesting to see that an AI researcher holds much the same set of fears I'd expect many computer science type workers to hold. I was expecting a set of counter-culture fears instead of what I consider the "typical" positions.