Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!its63b!csrdi
From: csrdi@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ECTU68 R Innis CS)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: AI and the Arms Race
Message-ID: <163@its63b.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 6-Dec-86 06:37:47 EST
Article-I.D.: its63b.163
Posted: Sat Dec  6 06:37:47 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Dec-86 05:23:31 EST
References: <863@tekchips.UUCP> <2888@burdvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: csrdi@itspna.ed.ac.uk (Rick Innis CS3)
Organization: The Back Row
Lines: 44
Keywords: weizenbaum arms race ethics
Summary: why shouldn't 'technologists' be morally compotent?

In article <2888@burdvax.UUCP> blenko@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Blenko) writes:
>
>....I am claiming that technologists, by and large, are less
>competent than they might be by virtue of their ignorance of the
>criteria professors of moral philosophy, theologians, nuclear plant
>designers, and politicians bring to bear on such decisions.
>
I think this reflects a fundamental flaw in society - 'technologists'aren't 
trained to consider such problems, and most take no interest in them anyway.
By the way, your wording suggests that 'nuclear plant designers' aren't
'technologists'....whatever they may be. 

By a parallel argument, why are professors of moral philosophy, theologians, 
politicians etc fit to make decisions regarding the moral issues of 
technologies which they may know nothing about? Surely they are as ignorant of
the criteria 'technologists' may use to judge the ethical implications of
something?
>
>I propose that most technologists decide, explicitly or implicitly,
>that they will ride with the status quo
>
Most *people* go with the status quo - it makes life easier. Many don't even
think to question it, more's the pity. What was it Shaw said about progress
and dissatisfaction?

(from <863@tekchips.UUCP> in <2888@burdvax.UUCP> - sorry, can't remember who
the original sender was)
>
>|It also seems to me that responsibility for judging the likely outcome
>|of one's actions is not a thing that humans can evade, and I applaud
>|Weizenbaum for pointing out that scientists and engineers bear this
>|responsibility as much as anyone else.
>
I agree. Unfortunately, the vast majority do *not* think through the
likely outcomes of their actions. 
>
>	....If one persuades oneself that one is doing what Weizenbaum
>proposes, one simply defers the more difficult task of modifying one's
>decision-making as further information/experience becomes available
>(e.g., by revising a belief set such as that above).
>
Sorry, I don't see the connection. Can you explain further?

	--Rick