Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!cbmvax!bpa!burdvax!blenko From: blenko@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Blenko) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: AI and the Arms Race Message-ID: <2862@burdvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Nov-86 23:32:47 EST Article-I.D.: burdvax.2862 Posted: Thu Nov 20 23:32:47 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Nov-86 22:49:58 EST References: <8611181719.AA00510@watdcsu.uucp> Reply-To: blenko@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Blenko) Organization: System Development Corp., Paoli, PA Lines: 27 Keywords: weizenbaum arms race ethics In article <8611181719.AA00510@watdcsu.uucp> "B. Lindsay Patten" writes: [... stuff ...] |The real point Dr. Weizenbaum was trying to make (in my |opinion) was that we should weigh the good and bad applications of |our work and decide which outweighs the other. If Weizenbaum or anyone else thinks he or she can succeeded in weighing possible good and bad applications, I think he is mistaken. Wildly mistaken. Why does Weizenbaum think technologists are, even within the bounds of conventional wisdom, competent to make such judgements in the first place? Everywhere I turn there is a technologist telling me why SDI cannot succeed -- which tells me that technologists fail to comprehend consequences of their work from any perspective except their own. Is it not possible that the principal consequences of SDI will be something other than an operational defense system? Why doesn't Weizenbaum do some research and talk about it? Why is Waterloo inviting him to talk on anything other than his research results? No reply necessary, but doesn't the fact that technically- oriented audiences are willing to spend their time listening to this sort of amateur preaching itself suggest what their limitations are with regard to difficult ethical questions? Tom