
To Serve Man, with Software - ingve
https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-serve-man-with-software/
======
cdoxsey
It's been my hope that the russia story and Google and Facebooks realization
of the technology they've built has been used in ways they never intended,
might stand as a sober reminder about the reality of evil in the world.

People recognize evil in, say, Isis, Nazis, or a school shooter, but usually
accompanied with that recognition is a distancing from the act - a way of
saying "I'm not like them".

And I'm not saying you are. But evil is insidious and pervasive. It affects
everything we do. And that definitely includes software.

I worked for a company that had a help chat room, where users could ask a
support person questions about the product. It was publicly accessible from a
link on the website, basically a slack room. One day we notice two teenagers
had hijacked the room in the middle of the night and were using it for an
erotic conversation. That's fairly mundane, but what if they weren't
teenagers? What if one of them was underage, and we had accidentally
facilitated a child molester?

And this happens everywhere.

I heard about a kid who got cyberbullied with scratch (scratch.mit.edu)
because it allows you to share content with other users? Do you think the
makers of scratch ever imagined that they'd play a hand in some middle-
schooler committing suicide? (fyi, they actually police this stuff)

I've built financial research sites, ad optimization software, phone calling
apps, operational and monitoring tools. I _think_ all that software has been
mostly helpful for people, but I also recognize that it played a part in
nefarious ends as well.

Everyone's hands are dirty.

~~~
christophilus
I've been thinking about this lately, as my current software platform is
sometimes used for purposes I _really_ don't like. And I've been considering
moving to work on some Etherium applications, since I strongly believe in a
decentralized web. But the decentralized web will certainly enable unsavory
characters to do evil things.

In the end, we build things for the purpose of serving others, but can't
really beat ourselves up when those things are misused. If I was an automotive
engineer, I wouldn't like the fact that creeps were using my cars to kidnap
people or as getaway vehicles or the like, but it doesn't mean that I'm
complicit in those things. I think software-- for the most part-- is a lot
like that.

~~~
QAPereo
By the same token if you specialized in armored cars that could outrun police
and were invisible to radar, you’d have no right to be shocked by who ends up
using it. You’d protect diplomats and people in dangerous parts of the
world... and cartel kingpins, dictators, etc.

------
josinalvo
Not one word about automation?

We're frequently automating away jobs, in a way that makes capital more
productive and shifts the balance of power from worker to capital.

It is unclear that the gains in productivity we might cause are good for those
who are in the lowest hungs of the ladder.

This is what worries me.

~~~
handelaar
Jobs which machines can do instead of people are by definition jobs which are
_beneath people_.

"Making capital more productive" is in your frame of reference neutral, not
bad. And no, it doesn't "shift power from worker to capital" unless you
actually think anybody _wants_ the kind of job which is so tiresome it can be
done with a machine instead. Don't confuse hard work for wages with job
satisfaction -- you'd be doing one of those jobs yourself if you thought them
as noble as this.

~~~
josinalvo
> unless you actually think anybody wants the kind of job which is so tiresome
> it can be done with a machine instead.

Journalists are probably gonna be automated. Truck drivers as well.

I bet those two categories are not of people who consider their jobs
meaningless.

Also, salesmen/saleswomen are being automated by websites. But their job is
not beneath human dignity in any sense: it can be creative and highly social.

So this seems to be an over-generalization

~~~
Spivak
This seems like mostly semantics. If a machine can literally do your job then
the claim is that it becomes beneath humans to do it.

Your work will continue to have value so long as you can do it better and/or
cheaper than a machine can. I don't think anyone denies that the process of
making a hamburger can be automated, but this certainly doesn't put chefs out
of business because they do it better.

This is, say, in contrast with say a conveyor belt. No human will ever be able
to do better in the task of moving and sorting large amounts of simple items
over short distances.

~~~
evilduck
Its pretty clear we're on a technological trajectory where anything mass
produced and mass consumed like automated burgers that beat a chef's skill is
only a matter of _when_ it gets rolled out. Human made versions of things are
going to be entirely relegated to artisan efforts where the human-introduced
flaws are the aspect people value over the objective merits.

~~~
labster
There is a real difference between wanting variety and wanting flawed goods.
Mass production is great for mass producing, but not so much for making unique
items. We eat food prepared by a chef not because it is flawed compared to
McDonald's, but because it's an experience that can't be mass produced.

~~~
adrianN
I mostly eat food made by a chef so that I don't have to do the dishes
afterwards.

~~~
wtetzner
You don't have to do the dishes after eating McDonald's either.

------
tonyrice
That brought tears to my eyes. Ever since I can remember I've felt deep inside
me that it is my duty to help others and do everything I can in me to make
change in this world. That I must show others the same. Sometimes this can
feel like more weight on my shoulders than I bargained for. Sometimes it helps
rise me up and reminds me to always keep moving forward. I can't help to ask
myself though, is this just something software developers have inside them?
For myself I understood this pretty well, but I can't help to maybe think this
isn't just software developers that have this everlasting feeling to serve
man.

~~~
hux_
It's called faith. Faith that tomorrow will be a better day. Faith is hard
work.

People aren't taught well what it is, how to produce it and how to hang on to
it when it's most needed.

Doesn't matter which geography/culture/religion you are from, understanding
how faith is generated in self and in others/what it takes to preserve it
under stress is fundamental to doing the hard stuff.

~~~
jackstraw14
> People aren't taught well what it is, how to produce it and how to hang on
> to it when it's most needed.

I don't know about you but I don't see many signs of unselfish faith anywhere
these days, _at all_. I think where I get hung up on what exactly faith is, is
somewhere around when someone says it's some "something" that can be summoned,
and when I look it up on wikipedia it's something produced on demand by
enlightened individuals who catch on at some point.

There's one problem that's been fairly rampant in America for over a century:
no one is enlightened anymore, and no one can give any convincing reason that
their vision of faith, or just simply what got them through the hard times, is
useful to you. Is today's world anything like what the people who built it
intended when they set out a few decades ago? Are their sources of faith still
useful, and if they're not, well then who's selling the faith fodder these
days?

i.e. if faith is what everyone needs, then you have to look first at why it's
fallen out of favor to the point where it needs a sales pitch. Why people give
a shit about more things than ever before, and why none of them involve the
fundamental component to doing the hard stuff: a good reason _why_.

~~~
hux_
You have to see it in the fact that people try.

Jeff Atwood did not have to write this article. The guy has an establised rep.
Is working on a well known project. He does not have to say anything. He knows
as soon as he opens his mouth, about an issue which no one has a great
solution for, he is opening himself up to unneeded attack. But he does it
anyway. That's what I see. That people like him are around. And they will try.

That's what gives me faith.

Faith does not guarantee happy endings or heroes and that is why it is hard.
So think about faith. Again and again. About how to produce and sustain it.

People underestimate the value of doing that and develop misguided notions
about rituals/imagery/narratives that have evolved in all people to produce
faith. To tackle the hard stuff.

------
epberry
I'm not sure it's important to debate whether software itself is _good_ or
_bad_. It just is; a means to an end. We should of course debate whether the
applications we build are good or bad. Many on this site consider Facebook to
be bad (I don't really agree). On the other hand most people probably consider
software which lands planes, drives cars, ensures accurate accounting, etc. to
be good.

~~~
ff_
I used to think that tech was only "means to an end", and in general "ethics-
less".

But then I read "Do Artifacts Have Politics?", and changed my mind. Everyone
in tech should read this:
[https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/Winner.pdf](https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/Winner.pdf)

------
abraae
I love Jeff's way of thinking. I watched a YouTube video where he explains
that he identifies a particular form of conversation - for stack overflow it
is Q&A - and then hones in and builds a perfect environment where such
conversation can take place.

Discourse is an awesome offering too,I hope that commercially it can lead a
long life.

------
mastazi
From the article:

> I'm ashamed of much that happened, and I think one of the first and most
> important steps we can take is to embrace explicit codes of conduct
> throughout our industry.

I think that there needs to be some sort of internationally recognised - and
legally binding - code of conduct, something like a hippocratic oath for
software developers.

~~~
dlgeek
I think the ACM Code Of Ethics is probably the closest, though not yet legally
binding: [https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-
profess...](https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-professional-
conduct)

------
luord
I feel that "Tron" has the most primordial and crucial advice for any
developer: "Fight for the users".

We should always keep that in mind and as the top priority.

------
jondubois
I hate the quote "Software is eating the world" because everyone keeps
referring to it as though it's ingenious but in 2011 that fact was already
pretty well established... It's like if someone said "the sky is blue" or "it
is raining right now".

If anyone less powerful than Mark Andreessen had said it, nobody would
reference this trivial phrase.

With this kind of attitude, I'm surprised that people are not quoting Mark
Zuckerberg for saying “OK, I'm gonna take off the hoodie" because it carries
about the same amount of information.

~~~
amarkov
I think you're underestimating just how many people believe the opposite. I
wouldn't be surprised if something along the lines of "you know, it's great we
have tech for our toys and Facebooks, but what really matters is making _real_
stuff" is a majority opinion.

~~~
caminante
I think you're saying something different re: values.

Parent's saying the trend has already been in place (and true) for significant
time. According to a survey[0] from Pew Research,

    
    
      "Americans are roughly twice as likely to express worry (72%) than enthusiasm (33%) about
      a future in which robots and computers are capable of doing many jobs that are currently 
      done by humans."
    

[0] [http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/10/04/automation-in-
everyday...](http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/10/04/automation-in-everyday-
life/)

------
pcunite
_Donald Trump is basically a comment section running for president_

There is this really big world of people who don't think like you, know that
history repeats itself, recognized before you were born that software can
enslave, and that are aware that _serving man_ would be something that would
allow for his own autonomy.

Serving man with software would then be about creating the independence of man
_from you_ while still allowing you to be you.

~~~
donatj
This. You’re not serving man by discounting half the population. Period.

~~~
GiorgioG
> The truth is that it's been hard to write because this has been a deeply
> troubling year in so many dimensions — for men, for tech, for American
> democracy.

American "democracy" isn't any more troubling in 2017 than 2016 or any other
year before that, it's just that his party has effectively very little power.
If he means Trump is still POTUS, then he's right. He's vehemently anti-Trump:
[https://blog.codinghorror.com/im-loyal-to-nothing-except-
the...](https://blog.codinghorror.com/im-loyal-to-nothing-except-the-dream/)

As for men/tech, I'm not sure why it's a surprise to anyone that the type of
(alpha?) male that winds up in a position of power (and/or money) would abuse
and misuse it for sexual predatory behavior. This has gone on for most of
human history.

A very small sample of randomly chosen examples from our recent past:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167013/Sexual-
preda...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167013/Sexual-predators-
police-abusing-power-target-victims-investigation-warns.html)

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/sexual-
violence-...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/sexual-violence-in-
world-war-ii-new-german-study-looks-at-rape-trauma-60-years-on-a-585779.html)

[https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/03/sexual-and-
predator...](https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/03/sexual-and-predatory-
magnitude-of-the-allied-forces-after-wwii-part-ii/)

Learning that these types of things happen frequently != epidemic or that
somehow 2017 was the year of the sexual predator.

