While it is also not my domain, I do care about this topic. I think one should distinguish between issues regarding the language only (e.g. current discussion around changing potentially offensive language in the Linux kernel and other projects) and those of surrounding communities and larger environment (How/who decides which packages are hosted in the “main” repository, how/who is administrating the community etc.). In addition, on a personal level ethical use means for me figuring out how to contribute to the community in a way that is beneficial to it. I also think julia’s community is doing particularly well in this respect. At the end if the day a community is made by its members. To stick with the screwdriver metaphor: If a person harms another with a screwdriver that does not reflect on the wider community of screwdriver users. Given that it is not endorsed or encouraged of course.
24 posts were split to a new topic: Creating a world of programming language to be inclusive as possible
@kevbonham Your post gives a good structure to the different points! Thanks.
I am not sure about how any of this could be helpful, or even possible.
Generally, such an investigation is feasible only for public use cases — if someone is doing something truly nefarious, presumably they would not put the source for it on Github. So you will never know.
But even if this information was collected, how would you act on it? If the license permits it, then there is nothing you can do to enforce your ethical preferences. You could organize some kind of a campaign, but then again, the people doing unethical things may not care.
So I would suggest not worrying about this too much. Just write good software and the rest will take care of itself.
So I think in general the idea is, if you make it, and open source it, its just that… A weapons company could come by use your code/idea/algorithm and go profit from killing thousands of innocent civilians in a war-torn country just in the same way an undergrad working on their capstone projects could use it to do something innovative and get into a nice school, or JuliaComputing could bundle it up and sell it as part of their software offerings, etc. For all we know JuliaComputing is part of a project to snipe out MIT competitors research. Hey, people in the community here could even work to remove recognition for other peoples work by project sniping, marketing, etc. That’s the territory.
Open source is open source. The ethics are down to how the community is fostered. In my opinion it’s best to be realistic… If you make something public expect some serious dirt bags to use it for their own dirty things. But hope that there are some small groups of decent people you can make friends with, or you get out of your project what you want before external forces step in. That’s basically the best outcome.
Life advice wise - If ethics concern you - learn to use a litmus tests. I’ve had people describe me as an idea farm, this caused me a lot of distress in undergrad when I had lots of people stealing from me, fake friends, etc and I was just trying to do cool things with new people. So here’s what you do: give out pieces of things(even unrelated things), offer broad ideas(tangential to your real passions), see how people react. Who becomes an instant thief, who starts nerd sniping, who starts taking advantage, etc. Then have a field day messing with them because they are automatons.
Find the people who are like you, become friends with them, have fun building cool stuff with them. We live in a world where people would happily watch a nonmonetary competitor suffer a needless painful death for a potential “gain”. Total strangers? forget about it, cellphones are more interesting.
Choose your tribe wisely, ethics are great on paper, but watch people and groups of them closely. Nothing is pure or ethical, be mindful of what you unleash into the world. I have 1.5 projects that I literally cannot share for reasons like this…
You may remember the thread about telemetry, and this post:
This poster left the community apparently and deleted his account here, because he felt that his code was missused. All happened inside this community. That’s where we have to look at first, inside our community. How can we act, how can we talk, what can we do or don’t do, so that these (extremes, arguable) doesn’t happen. Or happen at a minimum. Although he doesn’t want to be @, i do it nevertheless ( , I know provocative), because he @chakravala, nearly was, not so long ago, lost for this community. Probably, as always, because of minor (in the grand scope of view) missunderstandings and in succession not so wise words.
Why don’t we just make a machine learning model that will give an answer to ethical questions?
So although I don’t agree with Chakravala’s last statement I do want to make mention of this topic you’ve touched on oheil…
We have outcasts. We are all “early” adopters in the eyes of industry of a new technology. This draws in people who are driven by a seemingly crazy force to make something. Whether it’s new, the best, the fastest, doesn’t matter, etc. As Julia grows this will die out to facilitate a better corporate interest (sorry its a historical projection). If you honestly think there’s an interest in having people promote ideas contrary to whats beneficial for the corporate stakes involved here you will be met with a harsh reality in one shape or form maybe later then sooner(if you align with the powers that be) but historically sooner rather then later. Julia will become a name sake for a few areas and the rest of the people will be … less adored/mentioned/listened too/etc?
But I’ve seen what Chakravala has gone through(as an observer we don’t talk). I’ve seen it happen in a few fields, maybe all fields, I’ve done research/collaborations in (not to me). It brings up a seriously tough topic with surprisingly easy solutions… I’ll try to address this as generally as possible. The rest of this message is intended to be sobering and absolutely not specific to any single person.
There are people doing genuinely amazing things, that lack credentials(not ivy league, no illustrious post docs, not the ‘chief master scientist’ at a fortune 500, doesn’t have 7 figures in their rainy day fund), that don’t have mentors, that don’t have businesses and allies to back them or fight off the parasitic accompaniments in our world-wide culture. This can really drive someone with ‘idealistic’ interests into challenging places.
Where they may choose battles most people wouldn’t, lash out in ways those of us on the ‘inside’ of something don’t understand. The psychology is interesting (why on earth would someone fight inclusion efforts unless they felt the deck was stacked against them and others should experience this as well - food for thought)… But ultimately, it makes them easy targets for serious hardship… People can and will taken advantage of them, egg them on to make them look foolish in public, gas light them, underpaint achievements, you name it… For what? For being driven by whats in their blood and testing their metal to contribute net good to society in a way they know they can.
I think the only solution is better mentorship, helping hands, opportunities for growth/respect, high fives for jobs well done, and finding ways to integrate everyone we can into a micro-society more fit for them. Over-all kindness, and awareness means a lot.
The telemetry “issues” are small numbers to the grand scheme, but they are an artifact of the bigger picture in my opinion. Many see this new thing(julia) as a chance to change the culture/powers that be(you see this in all early adopter communities), to become something closer to a philosophical ideal. Why? Because we all want a fairer world, a more honest one, a more advanced society, etc. Not just scifi stuff, but the real bleeding heart stuff. Ultimately, I hate to say this, it would be highly unreasonable to expect anything other then minorly incremental improvements. It’s just hard, I mean, we all have our dreams like these crushed over time.
People are people, learning to live with this, color in the lines more often then not, is definitely a bitter pill to swallow. Trust me - it’s not the message I’d want to send, but, it’s a message of survival in a world that doesn’t have a vested interest in “thriving”. That utopia stuff isn’t going to be a part of this, its bad for business. Julia has businesses tied directly too it. People with those kinds of interests will be playing that game(and climb their way up via the usual methods), the others will just be having fun like they would otherwise - not caring about it.
But I like the humor in this statement (in the quoted quoted statement, not in the quoted statement, Tesla autopilot accidents are clearly not funny!).
Humor is often a way to break down barriers.
Yes I know. The trillions good things doesn’t matter if you did this single “bad” thing (in someones eyes).
But there is more to business: it means hundreds or thousands of employees and their families, too, who want to earn for a living. Don’t stop thinking when you arrived at the evil corporation or person who threatens you. Think further, there is always more to it.
Yes, Julia is a business. I am not that naive. I am working against cancer, a public institute, but it could be a pharma corporation, not so far away and they are in our projects. So there is quite some business involved. And even I need money for me and my family to live. So I would be quite surprised if my work wouldn’t contribute into e.g. patents, which again would make others rich and not me typically. This is nothing which should annoy me. Ultimately some else has seen his opportunity (and was in position) where I have seen nothing at all.
(This doesn’t justify real actions against you, to make this clear!)
(What I say is maybe off the point, as I don’t know, what happens to you, I admit, I found it difficult to understand clearly, there is probably a lot in between the lines)
(You are editing your post, so I will read it again later )
Yea I have a propensity for the cryptic. (I am saying “you” but not directing this to any single person)
But I’ll be clear THERE IS NOTHING wrong with making money, I’m all for it! I’m just saying, very little of our ethical concerns matter whatsoever, and they will not change much of anything unless most people are already on board. My opinion is: let julia computing do their thing, support them if you like it, don’t if you don’t, open source your code if you’re aware of the implications, don’t if you’re not. They don’t care if they lose one person, jeese even 100 or 1000, it’s not their bottomline. They have a product, its a good product, people will contribute to it (grad. students will be for years to come for pennies on the tax dollar or they will even pay to do this), they have political influence in governmental policy decisions via their parent university. It is what it is.
On a personal level, even leading world researchers have switched fields/interests/projects/etc for reasons like this. It’s part of balancing science and how much of ourselves we are willing to let be consumed to get enough money to survive. We all have our own lines drawn, my advice is don’t bend them in hopes for something shiny(it ain’t coming).
The rules are easy, the complexity is in that we all lack insight into what we’re really contributing too on a larger scale. Are we feeding a monster, or a friend? Is feeding a monster or even a friend beneficial to the world? Does feeding a friend turn them into a monster? Does feeding a monster turn them into a friend. Do we care about the world, maybe just our country, or our family? Depends on where your line is and what you want out of things - what’s the risk. If the risk lies in your soul/heart/constitution be careful. If you just need to graduate, or get your next paycheck, embrace the metaphysical suck.
So do I
I just wanted to note that I won’t select a reply as a solution since it would be opinion-based. Thanks for the many responses.
I’m not experienced with online discussions, but IMO the current discussion would be best placed somewhere else. (How about a lunch-break at JuliaCon2020? )
There is also a slack channel called ‘diversity’ and on this page we have: #community:diversity
It is an ethical obligation if you have a pet monster.
I suppose I wrote that from the perspective of when the power dynamic is more similar to the average user of Julia and JuliaComputing. Is JuliaComputing a monster to feed, or a friend? If we feed them as a friend will they become a monster? If we feed them as a monster, will they become a friend?
Someone could easily drop tens of million of dollar ideas into their laps that they aren’t positioned for. Is that a good idea though? Would it benefit the community, or the communities they’d impact? Would it benefit me? That’s the kind of internal but uttered debate I was offering. Ripple effect.
I don’t have such a black or white look onto JuliaComputing (or anything else).
A company/organisation like JuliaComputing is very important as it fills out an important and needed role: a contract partner for other companies. A community can not be that, as there is no liable (legal) person.
Not everything they do has to benefit the community. For me it is not this way, it is the other way round: I have to be of a benefit who ever I see responsible for the wealth of Julia, as Julia came as a free gift to me.
If Julia is changing because of somebody like JuliaComputing is doing bad, I have to accept it. Of course I can try to prevent it with my acting (like posting here against it) but at the end, Julia isn’t mine and it isn’t the community which possesses Julia.
Surely there will be edge cases which need to be discussed. Not everything is justified by this position. There is always a social responsibility, because even JuliaComputing would be not much without the community, e.g. we (or just me?) are trying to help people with issues with JuliaPro.
What do you think? Can you be more explicit on JuliaComputing because apparently I lack information here? (you probably can’t, thats ok, just ignore this, no PM needed, just in case)
There’s nothing wrong with JuliaComputing that I know of. I’m just saying, pretty much what you said.
The Ethics aren’t up to us. Whatever they decide we will live by whether we like it or not. They have the power to do what they want with their language, community, etc. We can debate about it, it is open source, but, ultimately, it’s a bit of a facade right? Every contribution we make does have a ripple effect to one or more corporate or governmental interests.
For example: If a julia user lived in another country and made a new high speed algorithm for their hobby, would they/we ever know if JuliaComputing used their code to make more effective algorithms on contract to the US military to help to kill their neighbors? Nope. It’s part of the game. So like I said before - choose your contributions wisely based on your own ethical line.
It’s never all glitter and roses.That being said, it doesn’t seem to be too bad. We’ll see how they hold up ethically over time. My guess is they’ll do better than most, but nothing world changing.
For fun here’s a piece about the creator of YOLO, YOLO v2, and YOLO v3 about why they changed their research interests. https://syncedreview.com/2020/02/24/yolo-creator-says-he-stopped-cv-research-due-to-ethical-concerns/
I find it brings an interesting look on the implications of OpenSource that all contributors ought to be aware of before joining/taking part. Also I am not condemning or promoting military use of these sorts of things, but I am saying, if this matters a lot to you, be aware of it.
In general I think moves like this are bad: research is now done by others but now under the hood. There are always others who do it as good or even better than you/me.
The bomb would still be in the world even without Oppenheimer.
Whatever is engineered or invented you can’t uninvent it. It is out. But what you can do is to give it to the public, to make it public to make the implications public. This is the first responsibility of the inventor. Withdrawing is neglecting responsibility.
OK, withdrawing from research doesn’t exclude to speak up publicly against something. Don’t know if this is case in this example.
Public and global dissemination is a solution. That’s the Nikola Tesla approach. But, putting something on a platter without warnings is potentially irresponsible?