I think the author is driving at the fact that labelling something ethically and technically heavyweight like ML programming as 'fun' downplays and obscures the gravity of the activity.
Haha, I thought as well. Here's a quote to further that point:
Attaining this level of concentration requires a state of mind called being ‘in the flow’, a quasi-symbiotic relationship between human and machine that improves performance and motivation.
As if the concentration required to code is anything special. And that fantasy bit about human-machine relationship.
Art is technically and ethically complex. I don't see anyone telling me to not do it. This seems like an excuse piece discourage people from doing computer science because it's "too hard".
The technical part is a weird objection to me, the ethical part less so -- there is definitely software development work with a strong ethical component. The article really suffers from conflating all of these things in a short span.
(Also, it's not clear to me that art is "ethically complex". Sure, there's always meaningful art made by what seem to be very bad people, but in terms of art actually having destructive power the way some software does, I'm not so convinced.)
In an ever-more intricate and connected world, where software plays a larger and larger role in everyday life, it’s irresponsible to speak of coding as a lightweight activity.
Is this what the author considers 'ethically complex'?
I was really hoping for something with some weight to it that would make way for deep thinking on the matter, but as presented...I'm not finding anything convincing about this bit of writing that the target audience (or who I suppose the target audience, because even that's hard to distill) doesn't already know, or anything that identifies or summarily challenges any frameworks of the 'ethics' of 'coding'.
More and more ‘decisions’ are being entrusted to software, including life-or-death ones: think self-driving cars; think semi-autonomous weapons; think Facebook and Google making inferences about your marital, psychological or physical status, before selling it to the highest bidder.
Maybe it's this line? But I stand on my soapbox and say these aren't ethical issues of 'coding', these are ethical issues that already exist, 'coding' is merely the most present manifestation of these things, flavorful carrots dangled at the end of a long stick wielded and ultimately controlled by human operators. Are those issues inherently ethical to coding? I posit they are not
> you’d never hear someone say that brain surgery is ‘fun’
Surgery is cutting an incredibly complex meaty system apart and then sowing it back together. I don't believe for a second that there isn't anyone who finds that fun.
Probably a terrible idea to tell the patient that though.
Given the choice between a brain surgeon who gets a similar kind of enjoyment from it is as I do coding, and one who finds the whole thing tedious and uninteresting, I'd prefer my chances with the former.
Although I'd hope they are a much better surgeon than I am a coder.
Just because something is fun doesn't mean it is trivial.
Seriously, this. I was recently faced with the difficult situation of having to consider surgery for one of my cats.
Unfortunately she ultimately passed away. But actually the one thing that gave me real confidence was that everyone I spoke to said that the surgeons there enjoy doing surgery.
Telling me this actually gave me more confidence in them than any other information they could have provided (including survival rates). Surgery is hard, complex, and ethically challenging (IMO). Knowing that a surgeon enjoys what they do just means to me that they are more likely to pay attention to detail (in all forms, including whether or not to do the surgery) and the complexity involved.
To be honest, I would feel significantly less certain about having a surgery done if the surgeon wouldn't tell me they enjoy it or found it _at least_ interesting.
> Surgery is cutting an incredibly complex meaty system apart and then sowing it back together. I don't believe for a second that there isn't anyone who finds that fun.
A disproportionate number of surgeons are psycopaths. That might(?) actually be a good thing, and to some I could imagine it being fun. Then again, I don't know if a psycopath knows what fun is so I take that back.
>Insisting on the glamour and fun of coding is the wrong way to acquaint kids with computer science.
This article approaches parody. This is as ridiculous as criticizing programs that promote STEM by focusing on fun experiments. Kids don't need to know the full complexity of the field from the start.
Michael Scott put it best: "You don't go to the science museum and get handed a pamphlet on electricity. You go to the science museum and you put your hand on a metal ball, your hair sticks up straight... and you know science."
15 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 43.7 ms ] threadAttaining this level of concentration requires a state of mind called being ‘in the flow’, a quasi-symbiotic relationship between human and machine that improves performance and motivation.
As if the concentration required to code is anything special. And that fantasy bit about human-machine relationship.
Edit: actually, I probably got even more intensely into a flow state making custom tracks in Trackmania, but The Sims is more well known.
(Also, it's not clear to me that art is "ethically complex". Sure, there's always meaningful art made by what seem to be very bad people, but in terms of art actually having destructive power the way some software does, I'm not so convinced.)
Is this what the author considers 'ethically complex'?
I was really hoping for something with some weight to it that would make way for deep thinking on the matter, but as presented...I'm not finding anything convincing about this bit of writing that the target audience (or who I suppose the target audience, because even that's hard to distill) doesn't already know, or anything that identifies or summarily challenges any frameworks of the 'ethics' of 'coding'.
More and more ‘decisions’ are being entrusted to software, including life-or-death ones: think self-driving cars; think semi-autonomous weapons; think Facebook and Google making inferences about your marital, psychological or physical status, before selling it to the highest bidder.
Maybe it's this line? But I stand on my soapbox and say these aren't ethical issues of 'coding', these are ethical issues that already exist, 'coding' is merely the most present manifestation of these things, flavorful carrots dangled at the end of a long stick wielded and ultimately controlled by human operators. Are those issues inherently ethical to coding? I posit they are not
Surgery is cutting an incredibly complex meaty system apart and then sowing it back together. I don't believe for a second that there isn't anyone who finds that fun.
Probably a terrible idea to tell the patient that though.
Given the choice between a brain surgeon who gets a similar kind of enjoyment from it is as I do coding, and one who finds the whole thing tedious and uninteresting, I'd prefer my chances with the former.
Although I'd hope they are a much better surgeon than I am a coder.
Just because something is fun doesn't mean it is trivial.
Unfortunately she ultimately passed away. But actually the one thing that gave me real confidence was that everyone I spoke to said that the surgeons there enjoy doing surgery.
Telling me this actually gave me more confidence in them than any other information they could have provided (including survival rates). Surgery is hard, complex, and ethically challenging (IMO). Knowing that a surgeon enjoys what they do just means to me that they are more likely to pay attention to detail (in all forms, including whether or not to do the surgery) and the complexity involved.
To be honest, I would feel significantly less certain about having a surgery done if the surgeon wouldn't tell me they enjoy it or found it _at least_ interesting.
A disproportionate number of surgeons are psycopaths. That might(?) actually be a good thing, and to some I could imagine it being fun. Then again, I don't know if a psycopath knows what fun is so I take that back.
This article approaches parody. This is as ridiculous as criticizing programs that promote STEM by focusing on fun experiments. Kids don't need to know the full complexity of the field from the start.
Michael Scott put it best: "You don't go to the science museum and get handed a pamphlet on electricity. You go to the science museum and you put your hand on a metal ball, your hair sticks up straight... and you know science."