←back to thread

The man who killed Google Search?

(www.wheresyoured.at)
1884 points elorant | 10 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
neilv ◴[] No.40134839[source]
I think this article would work better if it were written entirely like textbook traditional investigative journalism. And less like the modern TV opinion personality, or the random strong-opinion Web comments in which many of the rest of us (including myself) indulge.
replies(8): >>40134879 #>>40135262 #>>40135594 #>>40135904 #>>40136387 #>>40136703 #>>40137636 #>>40138408 #
romanhn ◴[] No.40134879[source]
Agreed. I struggled to keep going after "computer scientist class traitor". A very juvenile take that reflects poorly on the author, IMO.
replies(4): >>40135277 #>>40135352 #>>40137151 #>>40139031 #
akaij ◴[] No.40135352[source]
I thought it was a very good description. The person mentioned is responsible for turning one of the most important pieces of software used by billions, into user-hostile experiences that's better for only a few, including himself, just for profits.
replies(2): >>40135450 #>>40137397 #
ethbr1 ◴[] No.40135450[source]
As context, I offer the engineer oath used by some countries for certified engineers:

>> I am an Engineer. In my profession, I take deep pride. To it, I owe solemn obligations.

>> As an engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession. I will always be conscious that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of the Earth's precious wealth.

>> As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given, without reservation, for the public good. In the performance of duty, and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give my utmost.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer#Oath

replies(3): >>40136250 #>>40136375 #>>40136510 #
1. dekhn ◴[] No.40136375[source]
I woudl not sign that, and would instead call myself a computer programmer. That is an absolutely absurd set of sentences to sign one's name to.
replies(4): >>40136749 #>>40136905 #>>40137759 #>>40138155 #
2. kelnos ◴[] No.40136749[source]
And I wouldn't want to work with someone who would balk at something like that.
3. sophacles ◴[] No.40136905[source]
Why?
replies(2): >>40136980 #>>40137449 #
4. dekhn ◴[] No.40136980[source]
Because it's too vacuous and based on subjective morals to be realistically followed. I also think we need engineers who do jobs that are ugly to preserve our freedom.
replies(1): >>40138195 #
5. chasd00 ◴[] No.40137449[source]
on example i see, "When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given, without reservation, for the public good"

who decides they're needed? me, or some other form of authority? "shall be given"... as in no compensation just forced to work? "the public good", what does that even mean? like software for homeless shelters or national defense? Does designing AI for targeting enemies for bombing count as public good? In many eyes it does and in many eyes it does not.

6. rfrey ◴[] No.40137759[source]
Luckily for you, there's no professional engineering society on the planet that considers computer programming to be engineering.
7. ◴[] No.40138155[source]
8. robryk ◴[] No.40138195{3}[source]
I don't see why subjective morals cannot be realistically followed. Do you mean that it will mean sufficiently different things for different people that they any promise of this shape will not communicate much to strangers, or something else?
replies(2): >>40146037 #>>40147161 #
9. dekhn ◴[] No.40146037{4}[source]
yes, it communicates nothing. As mentioned by another commenter, it's effectively aspirational ethics, and I do not work towards aspirations, I work towards reality.
10. fuzzfactor ◴[] No.40147161{4}[source]
>based on subjective morals

Might be more realistic than imposed dogma, you never know.

>I also think we need engineers who do jobs that are ugly to preserve our freedom.

I think so too.

If you build something that can be used for evil purposes, some people along the line are going to have to judge how to build it, or whether or not to build it at all.

This seems like it would always require some moral judgment of some kind.

An engineer who plays an important technical role should not be removed from this type responsibility.

For instance, consider making weapons, some of which might be used offensively, others only defensively.

Some engineers would have no moral qualms against either type, others who are more selective, and others not willing at all. But regardless, coexistence is assured if it is accepted from the outset as an engineering goal.

These are really quite "different things for different people", triggering a different degree of uneasiness as different lines are crossed. All based on a moral foundation, incidentally whose goalposts can be moved whether anyone wants them to or not.

All could be valid depending on the situation, but a creed for the profession can help to better focus outcome, away from the direction of making things worse for humanity because of your efforts.

Experience has shown you really don't want people in key positions without a moral compass to guide their aspirations, and engineering can be important.