A fascinating - if deeply depressing - thread: many thanks to all.
Let me add: the relatively sudden interest among Harvard, Stanford et
al in attempting to introduce some element of ethics into CS (and
related) instruction is also quite striking to many of us who have been
doing this for 30 years or longer. James Moor at Dartmouth, for
example, was pushing in these directions in the 1980s - and enough
U.S.-based philosophers and CS (and related) folk were interested to
begin the Computing and Philosophy (CAP) conferences in the late 1980s,
based in Carnegie Mellon and whose venues included Stanford. The topics
included AI, logic, hypertext/hypermedia - and ethics, both in
application and teaching.
Very briefly: those of us who have thus been engaged in these domains
for quite some time see information and computing ethics (ICE) as
grounded in Norbert Wiener's _The Human Use of Human Beings_
(1950/1954): "cybernetics" is from _kybernetes_, the steersman or pilot
which in Plato stands as the exemplar of _ethical_ judgment and the
capacity for _ethical_ self-correction. (Admittedly, there are
strikingly few people, even in the ICE communities, seem to be aware of
Especially as CAP morphed into the International Association of CAP
(IACAP) in the early 2000s, all of this blossomed in many and various
ways - including three additional professional organizations and
conference series devoted to various dimensions of ethics vis-a-vis
computational and computer-mediated communication technologies (the
latter with roots back to the 1980s, if not earlier, as well). Namely,
the CEPE (computer ethics: professional inquiries) series begun by Simon
Rogerson in the UK and INSEIT (International Society for Ethics and
Information Technology), both starting up in the late 1990s. Likewise,
the Society for Philosophy of Technology (SPT) started up in 1995,
beginning with its now flagship journal, _techné_.
From my perspective, the most remarkable developments have emerged over
the last four or five years, as our colleagues in CS and related fields,
including network engineering, for example, have themselves begun to
argue for and exemplify the importance of ethical reflection in their
work. There are some striking examples - at least on this side of the
pond - and I'd be happy to share references if anyone's interested.
Most remarkably in these directions: the IEEE project to develop ethical
standards for the design of Autonomous & Intelligent Systems, now
concluding its second phase, draws centrally on the virtue ethics
tradition first staked out by Norbert Wiener as central to their
frameworks for "ethically-aligned design" (https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org/)
In parallel: the most recent philosophical and policy-related documents
on ethical frameworks for AI in the EU centrally stress virtue ethics as
well as Kantian deontology (autonomy / dignity) as core pillars. (The
most prominent and influential work is connected with Luciano Floridi at
the OII, who is also a member of the European Data Protection
Supervisor's Ethics Advisory Group:
The EU folk recognize that these ethical emphases distinguish them from
both the US and China in a number of critical ways. Vis-a-vis this
thread: given the significance of both the IEEE project and developing
EU policy on ethics in conjunction with the development of AI, the IoT,
etc. - the, um, indifference, if not hostility towards ethics in
primarily the US context, as represented in this thread, is at best
startling and at worst deeply disturbing. (Think: the US version of the
Chinese Social Credit System, in which any notion of human dignity and
rights take a distinctive back seat to utilitarian emphases on economic
efficiencies and benefits - where utilitarianism tends to be the default
ethical framework in the US in any case, as the focus on the Trolley
Problem in conjunction with autonomous vehicles exemplifies.)
At the same time, both this history and these recent developments make
the current "discovery" of ethics and computation by Harvard, Stanford,
MIT (e.g., "the moral machine") seem woefully ill-informed and ethnocentric.
Correct me if / where I'm wrong.
On the other hand, perhaps better late than never and everything should
be done to encourage further developments in the US context especially.
Those of us engaged in these domains have some strategies for doing so -
but suggestions and comments in these directions would be greatly welcomed.
Many thanks for reading this far -
On 01/02/2019 20:02, Yosem Companys wrote:
My comments inline below in blue...
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:49 AM Richard Brooks <r...@g.clemson.edu
Reminds me of a proposal I wrote for an ethics course to NSF.
My proposed course looked at the economics of the industry, as
pointed out by Ross Anderson, that the market rewards bad
and insecure software. This means that structurally it is
almost impossible to be ethical and survive. The course included
finding regulatory and market modifications that would support
producing secure systems and economic survival.
I find something wrong with a system that supports making
My course proposal was turned down. My favorite review
of the proposal said it is wrong to combine ethics and
That was the question Oliver Williamson asked before his being awarded
the Nobel Prize in Economics.
Research by Dale Miller
and others shows that students who take economics courses in college
become more selfish and less altruistic after taking the course.
My Harvard advisor Jeffrey Sachs once told me the story about how the
President of the University of Chicago -- then an economist -- heard
Jeff go on and on about the importance of technologies to what was then
called "developing economies." When Jeff was done, the President turned
to him and said, "Jeff, you know that there's no such thing as
technology because we haven't modeled it mathematically yet."
When I came to Stanford and turned to the natural and behavioral
sciences, one of my professors would introduce me at parties as a
"recovering economist," which I always found amusing.
We should teach them to do the ethical thing, especially
when it means that they will go bankrupt.
Professor in Media Studies
Department of Media and Communication
University of Oslo
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial
search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change
to digest mode, or change password by emailing