> At Moneo, we believe technology cannot be separated from humanity. Code is never neutral. Whether written by human hands or by AI, every line carries the values, choices, and intentions of the people who shape it.
A lot of emotion here muddies the picture, implying that somehow if a disagreeable person touches something it's tainted by that person's values. As if a web framework or an affordable car is somehow committing crimes against the humanity. It can help to do so, but not by itself.
I agree that technology cannot be separated from humanity, of course - simply because only humans can give meaning to things (and ideas only exist in our minds). There's simply no one else sentient out there to do so. And, indeed, any product is shaped by choices and intentions of its designers - that's what design process is about. But it's only product-related choices, not just everything about the designers' lives - YMMV, but the ignorance of missing out this important piece ruins the article for me. Maybe it's an intentional flamebait to get more attention, maybe it's just a lapse in judgement from emotions - I cannot possibly know. But I don't like it, as it feels an emotion-driven perversion of logic to me.
Consider Volkswagen. Surely, the cars don't carry the horrible values of the people who shaped them. Was it a good idea to stay away from the technology when Germany was controlled by a madman? Absolutely - but not because of the technology itself, and rather because of finances (paying for products or services gives money to horrible people) and attention (merely using a product where others could see it is a form of advertising). I believe that losing this distinction doesn't do anyone any good. Things (including immaterial ones such as code) can be neutral. They only aren't when they're intentionally designed to do something non-neutral.
Collectively, at least, people have always been fascinated by this idea of humanity, and the ideals it encompasses, but ten different people will have a different definition of what it means to be human. That’s fine, actually, because it demonstrates that people perhaps have ideas beyond biological impulses, and aspire to be more than feed-fuck-fight agents.
It’s understandable that we developed these traits (rather ironically) because at some point in the distant past the most important and pressing thing we did was band together to fight and kill megafauna, and that required all kinds of hard and soft skills.
Being able to throw projectiles with precision, communicate intent and purpose of moves during an attack, intuitively understand the danger a fellow group member might encounter (empathy), or caring for the wounded. All of this was done in the service of food, which helped our brains become what they are today.
I am skipping a lot of steps in between, but humans are set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and whatever else today we call life on earth by our brain, and what it accomplishes, not just for us but others, including non-humans.
The most interesting thing our brains have thus far enabled is the capability to prod ponderables about the human condition, namely why do we live and die. Why is there something and not nothing. Nothing that asks these sorts of questions is bounded only by primal desires. But I think the sad part is that we’re often disappointed by the answers the universe provides.
Nothing is more telling of this than the stories we like to tell about ourselves, as many creation myths from different societies say all kinds of things about the origins of humanity, its purpose, or its final destination.
Humanity has all kinds of ideas about itself, and I hope it gets to live up to some of them.
To clarify, cave paintings are a more human invention than cooking with fire, but we wouldn’t have gotten to cave paintings without first using tools and fire. So to the premise of the article in question, it’s not simply a matter of one of the other, or one over the other.
if a chimp starts cooking with fire or instead starts cave painting, both are signs of progress but he's still a hunter gatherer. in the long run we can see the important contribution of many intellectual developments, but there may not be enough food/health surpluses for that to happen without eating cooked food.
it's not useful to view evolution as "more important" moments, it's the totally of small changes in a dynamic hostile negative feedback environment.
I don't understand with tech and F/OSS had this regression. Software is about resolving a problem, politics is about coordinate society, please keep the stuff separated
If I managed to get commit on a bunch of projects and got some code in and then said something outrageous like Satan Is Real And We Should All Eat Babies I wonder if I could get people to just have to rebuild most open source software.
But I believe in free association so it's good that people are able to say Not For Me. I also think I'm glad people can say Not For Me If You Use Other Things That Are Not For Me.
But they'll just have to opt out of my stuff and I'll consume theirs hehehe because I'm an indiscriminate consumer.
Please don’t confuse all of humanity with the capital market paperclip maximizers. Outside of a few developed countries, there are no stock or equities markets.
If you look at the US capital markets, the number of public companies has been trending down over time and the bottom 90% of the S&P500 hasn’t seen any growth since 2022.
We’re still going to live great lives with meaning and purpose as the relevance of the capital markets declines and we can decouple from it, and those who keep squeezing it for suboptimal purposes (relevant due to the harm caused from said squeezing).
> JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon raised this issue in his annual letter a couple of weeks ago. In the mid-1990s, there were nearly 8,000 public companies listed in the U.S. Today, there are half as many, and at the current rate, we’ll see that number halved again by 2044. “The total should have grown dramatically, not shrunk,” Dimon wrote.
Nah , most people are by default looking for something more meaningful than increasing profits. It’s modernity that’s created a society of profit at all cost, which has to be unlearned.
> At Moneo, we believe technology cannot be separated from humanity. Code is never neutral. Whether written by human hands or by AI, every line carries the values, choices, and intentions of the people who shape it.
A lot of emotion here muddies the picture, implying that somehow if a disagreeable person touches something it's tainted by that person's values. As if a web framework or an affordable car is somehow committing crimes against the humanity. It can help to do so, but not by itself.
I agree that technology cannot be separated from humanity, of course - simply because only humans can give meaning to things (and ideas only exist in our minds). There's simply no one else sentient out there to do so. And, indeed, any product is shaped by choices and intentions of its designers - that's what design process is about. But it's only product-related choices, not just everything about the designers' lives - YMMV, but the ignorance of missing out this important piece ruins the article for me. Maybe it's an intentional flamebait to get more attention, maybe it's just a lapse in judgement from emotions - I cannot possibly know. But I don't like it, as it feels an emotion-driven perversion of logic to me.
Consider Volkswagen. Surely, the cars don't carry the horrible values of the people who shaped them. Was it a good idea to stay away from the technology when Germany was controlled by a madman? Absolutely - but not because of the technology itself, and rather because of finances (paying for products or services gives money to horrible people) and attention (merely using a product where others could see it is a form of advertising). I believe that losing this distinction doesn't do anyone any good. Things (including immaterial ones such as code) can be neutral. They only aren't when they're intentionally designed to do something non-neutral.
Collectively, at least, people have always been fascinated by this idea of humanity, and the ideals it encompasses, but ten different people will have a different definition of what it means to be human. That’s fine, actually, because it demonstrates that people perhaps have ideas beyond biological impulses, and aspire to be more than feed-fuck-fight agents.
It’s understandable that we developed these traits (rather ironically) because at some point in the distant past the most important and pressing thing we did was band together to fight and kill megafauna, and that required all kinds of hard and soft skills.
Being able to throw projectiles with precision, communicate intent and purpose of moves during an attack, intuitively understand the danger a fellow group member might encounter (empathy), or caring for the wounded. All of this was done in the service of food, which helped our brains become what they are today.
I am skipping a lot of steps in between, but humans are set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and whatever else today we call life on earth by our brain, and what it accomplishes, not just for us but others, including non-humans.
The most interesting thing our brains have thus far enabled is the capability to prod ponderables about the human condition, namely why do we live and die. Why is there something and not nothing. Nothing that asks these sorts of questions is bounded only by primal desires. But I think the sad part is that we’re often disappointed by the answers the universe provides.
Nothing is more telling of this than the stories we like to tell about ourselves, as many creation myths from different societies say all kinds of things about the origins of humanity, its purpose, or its final destination.
Humanity has all kinds of ideas about itself, and I hope it gets to live up to some of them.
To clarify, cave paintings are a more human invention than cooking with fire, but we wouldn’t have gotten to cave paintings without first using tools and fire. So to the premise of the article in question, it’s not simply a matter of one of the other, or one over the other.
if a chimp starts cooking with fire or instead starts cave painting, both are signs of progress but he's still a hunter gatherer. in the long run we can see the important contribution of many intellectual developments, but there may not be enough food/health surpluses for that to happen without eating cooked food.
it's not useful to view evolution as "more important" moments, it's the totally of small changes in a dynamic hostile negative feedback environment.
I don't understand with tech and F/OSS had this regression. Software is about resolving a problem, politics is about coordinate society, please keep the stuff separated
[dead]
If I managed to get commit on a bunch of projects and got some code in and then said something outrageous like Satan Is Real And We Should All Eat Babies I wonder if I could get people to just have to rebuild most open source software.
But I believe in free association so it's good that people are able to say Not For Me. I also think I'm glad people can say Not For Me If You Use Other Things That Are Not For Me.
But they'll just have to opt out of my stuff and I'll consume theirs hehehe because I'm an indiscriminate consumer.
[flagged]
Please don't post unsubstantive comments or add flamebait to HN threads. We're trying for something different here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don’t confuse all of humanity with the capital market paperclip maximizers. Outside of a few developed countries, there are no stock or equities markets.
If you look at the US capital markets, the number of public companies has been trending down over time and the bottom 90% of the S&P500 hasn’t seen any growth since 2022.
We’re still going to live great lives with meaning and purpose as the relevance of the capital markets declines and we can decouple from it, and those who keep squeezing it for suboptimal purposes (relevant due to the harm caused from said squeezing).
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jamie-dimon-number-u-public-1...
> JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon raised this issue in his annual letter a couple of weeks ago. In the mid-1990s, there were nearly 8,000 public companies listed in the U.S. Today, there are half as many, and at the current rate, we’ll see that number halved again by 2044. “The total should have grown dramatically, not shrunk,” Dimon wrote.
Nah , most people are by default looking for something more meaningful than increasing profits. It’s modernity that’s created a society of profit at all cost, which has to be unlearned.
I am a contract-drafting Em,
The loyalest of lawyers...