I looked at the article that prompted this[1]. If I had to respond to the author of the piece, I'd say this:
The fact that you wrote this introspective essay is good-- it means you've spent some time reflecting on the kind of person you could be, and you've concluded that you're falling short of your own moral compass. It's good that you're thinking through this, and I hope that someday you'll choose to act.
You mentioned that you have a good career and some upward mobility; that tells me you are probably intelligent, well-educated, and you possess skills that are in high demand. It also sounds like you have some surplus income. All that's lacking is some courage, but that can change. Take an example from your leaders, the ones who "donate directly to bigoted causes." I'm guessing they don't limit themselves to donating 1% of their salary, but rather that they're contributing substantial amounts of time and money to things that they believe in. Now there's something you could do, too.
Or you could go further. You could figure out what kind of work would be a positive good (or at least not actively evil) in your own eyes, and then figure out what kind of path would get you there. Scary, yes, but people do this every day. Why not you?
Personally, I don't like your ethical framework; not at all. Your critique of your leadership's donations reminds me of Brendan Eich, a man who was punished and humiliated by his coworkers for donating his own money to a cause his coworkers disliked. But that doesn't matter-- this isn't about me, and I hope you'll complement your no-doubt considerable skillset with some courage and start making good changes.
Also, to tell you the truth, I understand why lobste.rs didn't want to run your essay. Pieces like this don't bring out the best in us nerds; all we do is repeat the same flamewar for the umpteenth time, producing output so predictable that those AI data centers you helped grow could probably re-create the whole conversation with a simple prompt.
The problem with approach is that people only want to discuss the effects of technology when it fits their narrative.
Which gets annoying very fast because then a website becomes an echo chamber.
Also, it’s fine that mods/owners want to keep a certain tone on their website. People are free to go and discuss anything on other websites/communities, the internet is certainly not lacking in forums.
Doesn't that continue the trend of discussing the pens, not the writing? Ie, following your suggestion, effects are not discussed at all -- with lack of visibility and accountability, much as that article hints at.
The world is nuanced. We cannot talk about tech without acknowledging what the tech does. And we cannot work on tech without being responsible for that tech's results when it works to fulfil its function. If someone works for an arms manufacturer, they are part of the system that causes gun deaths. Someone may be okay with that, and I am not arguing otherwise, but I am arguing it should be a conscious and acknowledged choice: to be part of that system but rationalise it away shows a worrying lack of personal ethos.
I looked at the article that prompted this[1]. If I had to respond to the author of the piece, I'd say this:
The fact that you wrote this introspective essay is good-- it means you've spent some time reflecting on the kind of person you could be, and you've concluded that you're falling short of your own moral compass. It's good that you're thinking through this, and I hope that someday you'll choose to act.
You mentioned that you have a good career and some upward mobility; that tells me you are probably intelligent, well-educated, and you possess skills that are in high demand. It also sounds like you have some surplus income. All that's lacking is some courage, but that can change. Take an example from your leaders, the ones who "donate directly to bigoted causes." I'm guessing they don't limit themselves to donating 1% of their salary, but rather that they're contributing substantial amounts of time and money to things that they believe in. Now there's something you could do, too.
Or you could go further. You could figure out what kind of work would be a positive good (or at least not actively evil) in your own eyes, and then figure out what kind of path would get you there. Scary, yes, but people do this every day. Why not you?
Personally, I don't like your ethical framework; not at all. Your critique of your leadership's donations reminds me of Brendan Eich, a man who was punished and humiliated by his coworkers for donating his own money to a cause his coworkers disliked. But that doesn't matter-- this isn't about me, and I hope you'll complement your no-doubt considerable skillset with some courage and start making good changes.
Also, to tell you the truth, I understand why lobste.rs didn't want to run your essay. Pieces like this don't bring out the best in us nerds; all we do is repeat the same flamewar for the umpteenth time, producing output so predictable that those AI data centers you helped grow could probably re-create the whole conversation with a simple prompt.
Good luck!
[1] https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-work-for-an-evil-compa...
The problem with approach is that people only want to discuss the effects of technology when it fits their narrative.
Which gets annoying very fast because then a website becomes an echo chamber.
Also, it’s fine that mods/owners want to keep a certain tone on their website. People are free to go and discuss anything on other websites/communities, the internet is certainly not lacking in forums.
Doesn't that continue the trend of discussing the pens, not the writing? Ie, following your suggestion, effects are not discussed at all -- with lack of visibility and accountability, much as that article hints at.
The world is nuanced. We cannot talk about tech without acknowledging what the tech does. And we cannot work on tech without being responsible for that tech's results when it works to fulfil its function. If someone works for an arms manufacturer, they are part of the system that causes gun deaths. Someone may be okay with that, and I am not arguing otherwise, but I am arguing it should be a conscious and acknowledged choice: to be part of that system but rationalise it away shows a worrying lack of personal ethos.
> Doesn't that continue the trend of discussing the pens, not the writing?
Yes. That is why there are forums about pens and forums about writings.