Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

I can see the vein twitching on the foreheads of a thousand anarcho-academics right now.

8

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

Do thousand anarcho-academics really care that much what some twitter person thinks?

EDIT: ok, I don't think I'm some kind of anarcho-academic, but I must admit it hit too close. Enjoy my twitching vein.

5

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

Yes, we get how peer review works, we know how a corpus of knowledge changes over time, we understand there are tens of millions of scientists of all different stripes. We are criticizing tendencies, institutions, and results. Get over yourselves.

Listen, scientists!

this is a long needed rant. Expresses a lot of what i have been thinking about, and some other parts for me to chew on. highly recommend to read it.

6

masque wrote (edited )

How direct is the connection between the scientists who work on broad, widely-applicable principles and the engineers who design & help bring specific, harmful products to market?

I mean, I deliberately do not work on facial recognition, predictive policing, "fake news detection" etc., but does all ML research implicitly contribute to these & other harmful applications of ML?

EDIT: It obviously contributes somewhat, but the question is how much contribution leads to an appreciable amount of moral culpability?

5

[deleted] wrote

3

masque wrote (edited )

In my case, I'm not working "for" the state or corporations - just investigating a topic that I find interesting per se, and trying to make my research publicly available to "the community" as a whole.

The problem is that, in practice, corporations and the state are the entities that have the resources to take advantage of advances in ML to their own ends; but then again, entities that already have power are the best suited to take advantage of any form of production. In that sense, don't all labourers "aid power" - and what exactly is the difference between "aiding power" and "being exploited by power" here?

5

[deleted] wrote

2

masque wrote (edited )

If someone works on, say, modeling the spread of wildfires, but their broad work on modeling geographic data over time could conceivably be applied to predictive policing, is that substantially more problematic than someone who works in a warehouse where some of the goods they handle are destined for "regular people" but some are destined for the military?

Obviously people who directly design weapons, surveillance tools, etc. are more directly culpable, but I'm asking how we should think about the more indirect connections?

5

[deleted] wrote

0

masque wrote

It's up to the individuals involved to take stock of what they think the likely uses are. My decision was to leave my career in tech entirely.

Massive respect to you for being able to stick to your principles to that extent.

One of the points Gelderloos is making tho is that if you are in that position, at the very least it's on you to actively work against the use of the research in those other fields.

Fair enough. I want to do this but it's not always clear how.

4

Artma wrote

Not going to dismiss anything in this thread, I agree with all of the bits I can comprehend, but I think it's important to mention that some of these inventions were not invented for evil or even had an evil intention. Any discovery can be used for good or bad, as in the case with some of these.

This doesn't dismiss or change anything. I only mention this as an aside, something you should keep in mind. Not every invention that has been used for bad was intended that way, or intended in the way it was used. People can also have good intentions but bad execution and that is separate from what I am saying, that deserves full criticism.

5

Bezotcovschina wrote

I'm not pretending to be universally correct, just want to engage in some sort of critique of this critique. I'm ready to be proved wrong:

I disagree that "over-generalized anger" is helpful in this case. ASAB? No. For one example: scientists do not invent facial recognition technologies, they study mathematical principles of computer vision and machine learning that can also be applied by engineers to perform facial recognition. All engineers are bastards?

you never acknowledge that you have way more social privilege and economic stability than the rest of us.

Like, where? In your country scientists might enjoy "social privilege and economic stability". In my country regular scientists are completely struggling.

We are criticizing tendencies, institutions, and results.

That's ok. I can get behind this.

STFU with this "Not All Scientists" bullcrap

I can't get behind this. Scientists, in general, have zero control over "institutions, and results"

Finally, love and respect to all the researchers and academics using their powers for liberation, provided they seek responsible ways to share their privileges.

What the fuck? In general, scientists don't use their "powers" for liberation or oppression. They are uncovering secrets of the world, at most and "doing their job" at least. Are you ready to carpet bomb with critique all the cashiers, because they enable capitalism?

4

masque wrote

I disagree that "over-generalized anger" is helpful in this case. ASAB? No. For one example: scientists do not invent facial recognition technologies, they study mathematical principles of computer vision and machine learning that can also be applied by engineers to perform facial recognition. All engineers are bastards?

As an ML researcher, the line between engineering and science in ML is currently a bit blurrier than I personally would like. There are definitely scientists who focus on facial recognition specifically.

4

willow wrote

and not all scientists work in academia. this is probably more true in IT than other fields but from what i understand, a lot of research in e.g. medicine and pharmaceuticals is done by private companies, in which case many of the scientists involved are probably working directly on practical, revenue-generating applications.

4

masque wrote

Yeah, a huge amount of progress in ML currently is driven by Google, Facebook, and other big tech companies. A lot of influential papers originating from industry aren't even published in a peer-reviewed venue, just thrown onto arXiv and picked up by the community.

5

[deleted] wrote

3

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

Don't you get your funding from the state and corporations? I do. So do cops and prison guards. So do scientists, yes. Honestly, I don't know where the line of justified "over-generalized anger" lays. I mean, why I, working for a corporation is different from some cop? I prefer to draw this line so me and scientists are on the same side. Gelderloos prefers it in different place. I don't think I'm more capable to back my stance up, then some anarcho-writer. All I have is my feelings.

That's a ridiculous assertion from anyone into radical politics.

I glad I don't into any politics.

2

ziq wrote

then why r u posting in f/anarchism?

2

Bezotcovschina wrote

?

Because I'm an anarchist?

Because I desire to do so?

Do you want to limit me on where I can post?

5

ziq wrote

Because I'm an anarchist?

you just said you're not into any politics

2

Bezotcovschina wrote

Is there some kind of contradiction?

4

ziq wrote

Yeah

1

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

Ok, you got me here, ziq.

4

_caspar_ wrote

I also see anarchy at odds with politics (though a majority of self described anarchists do not), either being apolitical (avoidant of the political project), or anti-political (reacting against it). the political project being: the polis necessitating politicians producing policy enforced by police.

3

Bezotcovschina wrote

This right here is exactly what's being critiqued. That's a ridiculous assertion from anyone into radical politics.

Could you elaborate?

2

[deleted] wrote

3

Bezotcovschina wrote

Thanks, I'll ponder about it for some time.

Right now, I agree that "Research isn't some inherent good existing outside of the world we live in." However, I disagree with "over-generalized anger". Scientists that made "oil drilling, and mental hospitals (prisons), and Ritalin, and cruise missiles, and mountain top removal, and sweatshops" possible are scientists that were researching mathematical analysis, physical properties of materials, thermodynamics. Are they more guilty then a miner, that provided ore for pipelines? Why?

It is good to be aware that by living under capitalism and empire you support capitalism and empire by most of you action. Is separating one group and guilty trip them for things indistinguishable from things anyone else do justified? I think, no.

3

Majrelende wrote

There is no system of oppression in the world today that functions w/out the complicity of scientists. Scientific institutions are a crucial part of capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy, etc. When an oppression is systematic, generalized criticism is justified, even though generalization always leaves things out. Yet criticisms of oppressive tendencies of scientists are always met with the same formula:

  1. Most scientists are good people who are actually working to solve x problem
  2. Actually, scientists are ALREADY aware of this problem, they're way ahead of you (without ever acknowledging the struggles of common people who forced them to admit their errors or the marginalized who are the true creators of knowledge).

So I guess we just dreamed up the scientists who made oil drilling possible, and mental hospitals (prisons), and Ritalin, and cruise missiles, and mountain top removal, and sweatshops. I guess nuclear weapons, tear gas, & Round Up were designed by people just pretending to be scientists?

Yes, we get how peer review works, we know how a corpus of knowledge changes over time, we understand there are tens of millions of scientists of all different stripes. We are criticizing tendencies, institutions, and results. Get over yourselves. We also notice, in your zeal to dissimulate you never acknowledge that you have way more social privilege and economic stability than the rest of us. Truly revolutionary people who work in an oppressive institution wholeheartedly support criticisms of the institution and they recognize that over-generalized anger is justified. They don't get defensive and try to reaffirm their authority. That is what reactionaries do. So until you bring me the corpses of the a**hole who locked me in a mental hospital, the one who designed Deep Water Horizon, the ones who certified the Coastal Gaslink pipeline, the ones making better lithium car batteries, the ones who carry out vivisection, who designed the LRAD, the F35, drones, tear gas, facial recognition, crowd control methodology, gender assignment surgery for intersex infants, VSL calculations, terminator seeds or if asking for their corpses is too much, at least a damn petition to have them disbarred, then STFU with this "Not All Scientists" bullcrap. It's not about you or your reputation, it's about all the harm being caused by this ongoing war against the planet and its inhabitants.If you live in the comfort zone, you're on the wrong side.

Finally, love and respect to all the researchers and academics using their powers for liberation, provided they seek responsible ways to share their privileges.

3

train wrote

Mmm I think there is a distinction between science, scientists, and scientific institutions that Genderloos is conflating, though I get where they are coming from.

Researchers are morally culpable to a degree in how their research is used to exploit others. But intent matters and I don't thing scientists are uniquely culpable when compared to others.

Generloos also does not seem to aknowledge that the bulk of meaningful scientific research is performed by an underpaid and heavily exploited workforce. His critiques are generally more applicable to tenured faculty and or principle investigators at public and private institutions. I think post docs, grad students, and research associates are atomized in such a way that makes it difficult to oppose institutional hierarchies and wrongdoing.

I will say many scientists do use the scientific method as a cover to justify the absurdity of their hierarchical power structures and methods of publishing/grant funding. But I think it's important to identify the hypocrisy that the structure of these institutions were not determined using the scientific method.

All together I think science in general deserves more nuanced critiques. Especially considering I think science as a methodology has significant potential to benefit humanity.

1