I did the Stanford thing a long time ago, but there were tech objectors even then. A comparatively small number of activists protesting this or that, “Do you really want to work for Microsoft/IBM/Oracle?” with most engineers just keeping their head down and studying.
I honestly think that there should be some sort of ethics course required of CS students (like how MBA students are often required to take a class in business ethics, and doctors are required to learn medical ethics).
Engineers who behave unethically without asking questions aren't good engineers--at least, they're not the sort of engineers we want to be creating.
I have trouble with the notion that a single class during tertiary studies is what will make the difference between ethical or unethical behaviour.
Ethical behaviour is - or should be - learned and refined over a lifetime, via parents, peers, all levels of education, employers, wider society and one's own contemplation.
I'm suspicious of the inclusion of ethics classes in MBA courses, given the kind of work many MBAs end up doing. I suspect it can create a mindset in which anything you convince yourself is OK according to what you learned in your ethics class is acceptable, which is a very weak and inconsistent standard.
To be clear, I'm fully supportive of the idea that engineers and everyone else in tech companies should behave ethically. I'm just not sure ethics classes will achieve that outcome.
If engineers, or any employees, are behaving unethically, it's because there's a misalignment between the employee's own short-term incentives (i.e., keeping their job, getting a promotion/raise), and societally-beneficial objectives. It'll take more than an ethics class to fix that.
Well, define ethics. The protesters mentioned in the article seem to think that even providing software to law enforcement is unethical (like many google employees seem to think that providing software to the US armed forces is unethical). I don't think that a Silicon Valley definition of ethics will gather much consensus.
I don't think that would do anything at all. People aren't going to learn ethics from a class. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to single out CS students, as many ethical decisions in tech are made by business people anyway.
In the US, if you go to an ABET accredited engineering school, you are required to take an ethics class. Computer Science, however, is not an engineering discipline as far as ABET is concerned, so CS majors often don't have an ethics requirement.
The content of the ethics class is different than you may think though. There isn't really an engineering version of the Hippocratic Oath, and the instructor normally realizes that he or she isn't going to instill a sense of ethics into a bunch of bored 20-somethings in three months if they haven't developed one already. Instead, the class tends to focus on choices you might face as an engineer, why they are hard, and the outcomes for both you and society at large.
There was a year-long module on engineering ethics included in my M.Eng. degree course. We discussed the usual "software engineering failure" stories - THERAC-20 and so on.
In my experience - the overwhelming majority of students just wanted to pass the module, had no intention of contributing. I asked a friend in the same class what he thought of it, and he responded:
"What does it matter? I'm going to be working for a company, and they'll have rich lawyers. Any problem can be made to go away with enough money. All I need to care about is my pay cheque."
Last time I looked at LinkedIn he was working at one of the FAANG companies.
Nice idea in theory; in practice, it might be tricky to have the organizational incentives aligned to make sure such a course is rigorous enough to be useful, rather than yet another worthless and trivial humanities requirement (at my large public research university with a strong CS program, faculty essentially compete for students based on how little work their gen ed courses are---no joke---and our required CS ethics class was similarly light).
Does anyone seriously behave unethically because they don't know how to behave otherwise? I have a feeling that it's virtually always a conscious decision where someone prioritizes their own benefit over any cost to others, not that they just didn't know what the "right" decision was. Curious if anyone has experience a major change in mindset after taking an ethics course.
Highly Agree! I took a tech ethics class and learned so much about the basics of ethics, it really framed the world differently. I followed that up by taking a tech focused philosphy class which expanded on using those ethics basics in applied difficult tech industry questions. Just two classes, probably 6 credit hours total, and I have greatly expanded my mind. I also took a basic sociology course that was about information disparity in america which focused on race, class, etc. that probably helped as well. I so wish I could build a curriculum for modern CS
In my experience business ethics courses encourage behavior that is a far cry from what the rest of us would consider ethical — effectively boiling down to “generating the most value for shareholders”.
Lots of people here conflating "teaching what is right vs wrong" and "teaching how to consider what is right vs wrong". Ethics classes are typically the latter.
10 years ago I’d agree with you, but now? Not so much. Such a class would quickly be taken over by SJW-types and turned into advocacy instead of a class with a more philosophical demeanor where there is room for debate and disagreement people generally practice the principle of charity.
I can say, as someone currently hiring, that more than one applicant(1) has cited our focus on cancer, and not killer robots, as a compelling factor in applying. People in the killer robot jobs are actively looking for ways out. As an aside, the killer robot jobs tend to pay about 10-15% under market, at least according to Glassdoor.
What makes the comparison somewhat interesting, I think, is that we are still a military group, in military installations. We just happen to be hunting cancer because people in the military also get cancer.
(1) We're mainly talking STEM BS to PhD, mostly under 40.
I was the first full-time engineer at the previous company that I worked for. We were acquired by one of the companies mentioned in this article. During the acquisition, employees were given the choice to simply not join the acquiring company. I pondered on it a lot given my ideological beliefs and stances. For practical reasons, I decided to join while a close colleague opted out…looking back, for a number of reasons (first-hand knowledge/exposure/experiences that I prefer to not dive into), I wish I had done the same.
This was a bit of time ago and I am no longer employed by said company.
I applaud these students for standing up for what they believe in.
I lost my tech altruism after the Snowden revelations. I'd been in the business professionally since the mid 90s and as a hobbyist since the mid 80s. I still do it for a living because I gotta pay bills, but SV doesn't impress me as world changing, for the better anyway.
I had a similar epiphany, though I'm also a generally cynical person. It was always easier for me to believe that human nature would see us ultimately misuse technology for dystopian purposes. I also believe what's happened thus far is just the tip of the iceberg.
Meh, do your part and fix it. We can fight tech with tech, case in point, cryptography, PGP, Signal, OpenBSD. Adblockers, the battle of privacy will be fought, won or lost with tech. Pick your side, but apathy doesn't help.
I don't suppose this is really news, given that Facebook and Google are the Big Incumbents now. For many this is a Moral choice, and whether what you're doing is really helping out the world.
I'd say also, I currently perceive Google/Facebook as a place to "slow down". They're big enough and have enough resources to do anything they want, so it seems like there's gonna be a lot of people just hanging out and going the slow route.
>I'd say also, I currently perceive Google/Facebook as a place to "slow down". They're big enough and have enough resources to do anything they want, so it seems like there's gonna be a lot of people just hanging out and going the slow route.
Having worked in a startup and midsize environment and now at Google my experience has been the opposite. Getting to focus intensely on one or two projects at a time allowed me to push the needle on velocity. I don't push as many LOC, sure, but that isn't how I measure impact or progress. At Google I can make measurable, verifiable impact using a development cycle the loops over a few days. It's very hard to do that even at midsize companies.
For every politically woke CS student there are two dozen completely apolitical ones (and a sprinkling of wrongthinkers). I don't think Palantir is really desperate for applicants.
Stanford has also dumbed down its undergrad CS major, removing all of the old engineering requirements that tended to filter out the SJW types.
Edit: seems the downvoters don’t like what I have to say, but that doesn’t make it less true. Compare the graduation requirements for CS at Stanford from a few years ago to now - no compilers or os, no multivariable calculus, no pointers. They literally eliminated all the hard classes. As a result, the degree has become more liberal arts focused and the makeup of the class has changed in sync. I’d guess more than 50% of cs majors at Stanford we’re asian and foreign born just a few years ago - folks who you generally don’t see leading direct action protests.
Exactly. I know people would work for Palantir specifically because it appeals to their political taste.
People are different and complicated, assuming a blank slate of tech people following certain ideology is ignorant at its best, stupid at its worst.
Smart people won't go to Google/Facebook? Think twice. Maybe they want to spend more time in exciting/shiny stuff when they still can afford to make mistakes. The difference here being they CAN join Facebook or Google at the right time.
Money definitely talks, let alone the problem/scope company like Facebook or Google could offer, that certain startup couldn't even dream about.
The article does say the percentage of people accepting full time offers from Facebook has dropped from 85% to 35-55%. I imagine its far worse for Palantir. Sure, they can always get more applicants from somewhere, but in all likelihood they definitely do feel the effects.
I don't know if that's true among top-tier applicants. And even if the ratio were 24:1, it still not a meaningless gesture. It puts an economic pressure on a company when finding candidates is harder.
But really being able to be proud of the work you do in your life is its own reward.
While there's definitely backlash happening against companies like Google and Facebook, I have another theory.
New graduates are less interested in these companies because they don't represent their generation. When I was a kid, the idea of working for these companies was cool not only because they had cool products but because they were relatively new and were something relevant to be a part of.
Today, these companies aren't so cool to graduates because they're old school in tech years. Facebook and Google are massive companies where your impact will probably be a drop in the ocean. In a lot of ways, they're the IBM and Xerox of today; why would a kid in the 70s or the 80s want to work for those stuffy and slow-moving corporations when they could work for Apple or Microsoft? Maybe millennial still view these companies the way they did in their youth, but I doubt that Gen Z see them as the exciting new thing. Young people naturally want to do something new and don't want to exist merely to be the Atlas of the same world their elders built.
[+] [-] compiler-guy|6 years ago|reply
This is nothing new.
[+] [-] zamfi|6 years ago|reply
But I doubt it’s just about ethics. I remember when Facebook dethroned Google too.
[+] [-] bonestamp2|6 years ago|reply
Maybe the reason has changed though... why did they say this back then?
[+] [-] jasonhansel|6 years ago|reply
Engineers who behave unethically without asking questions aren't good engineers--at least, they're not the sort of engineers we want to be creating.
[+] [-] tomhoward|6 years ago|reply
Ethical behaviour is - or should be - learned and refined over a lifetime, via parents, peers, all levels of education, employers, wider society and one's own contemplation.
I'm suspicious of the inclusion of ethics classes in MBA courses, given the kind of work many MBAs end up doing. I suspect it can create a mindset in which anything you convince yourself is OK according to what you learned in your ethics class is acceptable, which is a very weak and inconsistent standard.
To be clear, I'm fully supportive of the idea that engineers and everyone else in tech companies should behave ethically. I'm just not sure ethics classes will achieve that outcome.
If engineers, or any employees, are behaving unethically, it's because there's a misalignment between the employee's own short-term incentives (i.e., keeping their job, getting a promotion/raise), and societally-beneficial objectives. It'll take more than an ethics class to fix that.
[+] [-] ummonk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cm2187|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Areading314|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tnecniv|6 years ago|reply
The content of the ethics class is different than you may think though. There isn't really an engineering version of the Hippocratic Oath, and the instructor normally realizes that he or she isn't going to instill a sense of ethics into a bunch of bored 20-somethings in three months if they haven't developed one already. Instead, the class tends to focus on choices you might face as an engineer, why they are hard, and the outcomes for both you and society at large.
[+] [-] philpem|6 years ago|reply
In my experience - the overwhelming majority of students just wanted to pass the module, had no intention of contributing. I asked a friend in the same class what he thought of it, and he responded:
"What does it matter? I'm going to be working for a company, and they'll have rich lawyers. Any problem can be made to go away with enough money. All I need to care about is my pay cheque."
Last time I looked at LinkedIn he was working at one of the FAANG companies.
[+] [-] weber111|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tuesdayrain|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bytematic|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ganduG|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pieix|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sexydefinesher|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nharada|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solveit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astrange|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deepakhj|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ReptileMan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malandrew|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] killjoywashere|6 years ago|reply
What makes the comparison somewhat interesting, I think, is that we are still a military group, in military installations. We just happen to be hunting cancer because people in the military also get cancer.
(1) We're mainly talking STEM BS to PhD, mostly under 40.
[+] [-] MarkMarine|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehlike|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ummonk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] C1sc0cat|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xxxpupugo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skgoa|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yoyo4658sld|6 years ago|reply
This was a bit of time ago and I am no longer employed by said company.
I applaud these students for standing up for what they believe in.
[+] [-] Clubber|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp527|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wideasleep1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] segmondy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taurath|6 years ago|reply
I'd say also, I currently perceive Google/Facebook as a place to "slow down". They're big enough and have enough resources to do anything they want, so it seems like there's gonna be a lot of people just hanging out and going the slow route.
[+] [-] kahnjw|6 years ago|reply
Having worked in a startup and midsize environment and now at Google my experience has been the opposite. Getting to focus intensely on one or two projects at a time allowed me to push the needle on velocity. I don't push as many LOC, sure, but that isn't how I measure impact or progress. At Google I can make measurable, verifiable impact using a development cycle the loops over a few days. It's very hard to do that even at midsize companies.
[+] [-] ng12|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aliston|6 years ago|reply
Edit: seems the downvoters don’t like what I have to say, but that doesn’t make it less true. Compare the graduation requirements for CS at Stanford from a few years ago to now - no compilers or os, no multivariable calculus, no pointers. They literally eliminated all the hard classes. As a result, the degree has become more liberal arts focused and the makeup of the class has changed in sync. I’d guess more than 50% of cs majors at Stanford we’re asian and foreign born just a few years ago - folks who you generally don’t see leading direct action protests.
[+] [-] xxxpupugo|6 years ago|reply
People are different and complicated, assuming a blank slate of tech people following certain ideology is ignorant at its best, stupid at its worst.
Smart people won't go to Google/Facebook? Think twice. Maybe they want to spend more time in exciting/shiny stuff when they still can afford to make mistakes. The difference here being they CAN join Facebook or Google at the right time.
Money definitely talks, let alone the problem/scope company like Facebook or Google could offer, that certain startup couldn't even dream about.
[+] [-] finolex1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexandercrohde|6 years ago|reply
But really being able to be proud of the work you do in your life is its own reward.
[+] [-] stonogo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] odiroot|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ravenstine|6 years ago|reply
New graduates are less interested in these companies because they don't represent their generation. When I was a kid, the idea of working for these companies was cool not only because they had cool products but because they were relatively new and were something relevant to be a part of.
Today, these companies aren't so cool to graduates because they're old school in tech years. Facebook and Google are massive companies where your impact will probably be a drop in the ocean. In a lot of ways, they're the IBM and Xerox of today; why would a kid in the 70s or the 80s want to work for those stuffy and slow-moving corporations when they could work for Apple or Microsoft? Maybe millennial still view these companies the way they did in their youth, but I doubt that Gen Z see them as the exciting new thing. Young people naturally want to do something new and don't want to exist merely to be the Atlas of the same world their elders built.
[+] [-] kjgkjhfkjf|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdashg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raxxorrax|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a_imho|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] draw_down|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]