‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Good people refuse to do bad things

144 points · 147 comments · Brajeshwar

  1. cogman10 · · focus · HN ↗
    I disagree with this article and here's why.

    Life isn't black and white with "good/bad". Further, there's no objective measure of what is good or bad. Everything is a shade of gray.

    You certainly could argue that some actions are absolutely good or absolutely bad, but those aren't the majority of actions people take on a day to day basis. People aren't often faced with "should I kill this person" or "should I publish the cure for cancer". Instead it's "should I eat a hamburger or a salad" or "Should I finish this jira case or that jira case".

    For example, you could argue that anyone working in an automotive plant is doing something bad because they are helping to produce vehicles which burn fuel which perpetuates climate change. But those plants also often produce parts for farm equipment or vehicles used to transport necessities like food.

    People working at AI companies can make similar personal calculations. Like yeah there are bad things happening because of AI, but also they can believe that there are good things that can come as a result such as research and product developments.

    1. dofm · · focus · HN ↗
      There may not be a definition of “good”.

      But there are several workable contextual definitions of bad; it’s your job to know what they are.

      For example:

      - it would cause a harm to someone who was not made aware of the risk up front.

      - it would cause someone to lose a job they didn’t know was under threat.

      - the way the harm occurs precludes its only corrective/curative action or has no adequate compensation.

      Bad things are almost always contextual but also almost always obvious in that context.

      You can’t avoid bad things that you can’t foresee. If you do not attempt to avoid, avert or mitigate bad things that you can foresee, then you are one of the bad things.

      Things may not always be black and white but it is wise not to seek the protection of the grey.

      1. arrowleaf · · focus · HN ↗
        "- it would cause someone to lose a job they didn’t know was under threat."

        Most of my life's work has been in areas of increasing productivity. Is that good or bad? On the good side of the spectrum, it reduces the time hundred of people need to spend on mundane tasks, or reducing the amount of mentally taxing complexity. On the bad side, based on this definition, there is less of a need to hire someone with specialized talent when the software can handle what their job function would be.

        I've always felt kind of bad helping companies automate people out of jobs, that's the core of what most of us writing software are doing. Maybe I am a bad person.

        1. dofm · · focus · HN ↗
          > that's the core of what most of us writing software are doing

          Is that necessarily so?

          1. arrowleaf · · focus · HN ↗
            No, there are many mission-driven companies from enterprises to startups, but in the USA most software engineers work for Fortune 500 (or Russell 2000, or aspiring) whose underlying mission is extracting profit from revenue.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.