[matz1]

Simple, not everyone share the same concern regarding privacy or those sjw stuff, moreover fb has vast amount of data and also funding, it's very suitable for AI research.

Even if he refuse to work with fb, pretty sure a lot of other people will be happy to replace.

[zimablue]

SJW is a weird insult to use here, the outcry isn't anything to do with SJWs. FAANG in general are actually very pro SJW in the gender/racial sense, see Damore's firing, the twitter feed of senior devs at any of them.

They're the epitomy of the liberal elite, privacy is totally orthogonal as an issue.

You can say right now that "not everyone cares about privacy" and it seems reasonable, but in a decade or two it will sound like saying "not everyone cares about environmentalism" does now, it's ignorance that will slowly bear fruit.

[komali2]

By using the term "sjw" I think you significantly diminish the strength of your argument. Why did you choose that word?

Is privacy only the concern of social justice warriors? Have you met rural American preppers?

[matz1]

sjw = individual who promotes socially progressive views. socially progressive views could include society attitude towards privacy.

[komali2]

Unfortunately, I don't think your personal definition of the word is in step with common parlance, hence my comment.

>Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

If you continue to use it to mean, just, "a liberal," people are going to misunderstand your point.

[matz1]

Yes, I used the Wikipedia definition. Not sure what do you mean by "a liberal"

[komali2]

Because to me "individual who promotes socially progressive views" just means "liberal," while SJW is an actual pejorative.

[aylmao]

> Even if he refuse to work with fb, pretty sure a lot of other people will be happy to replace.

I think this applies to some level to entry positions. I know plenty of people coming out of school who need the money, especially considering how aggressive the economic system in the US is to young people (student debt, impossible housing, tough job market to beginners, the responsibility of saving for an uncertain future due to the lack of safety nets, etc). It is also the case there's many people who could replace you: entry-level projects will be done, regardless of wether you do them or not.

Nonetheless, there's a point at which you're set. You could take another job without worries, and in fact you're in demand. Moreover, you're effective at what you do, and have started contributing with decision-making or really bringing efficiency into projects. At this point, other people will be happy to replace sure, but they won't be the same. There's more responsibility on you.

And lastly, you reach the point at which some of these top researchers are. They're beyond fine both economically and career wise-- they don't "need this job". They're also crucial. In their projects it's either them or no one. They are very responsible for their work.

[PavlovsCat]

> Even if he refuse to work with fb, pretty sure a lot of other people will be happy to replace.

Good for them. When I see a dog turd on the sidewalk, I don't step into it because otherwise, other people might. I make sure to not step into it for purely personal reasons -- it's me and my shoes that matter, not the dog turd regardless of its ambitions, nor people who might not pay attention to where they're walking.

[x3tm]

Science should be above this.

Inspired by your comment, I'll make my point more graphically: Nazi camps were also suitable for medical and spychological testing. Nazi and even interned doctors did all sorts of experiments on prisoners. And if they refused to do so, pretty sure other people would have been happy to replace. Not everyone shared the same concerns regarding human life.

[perfmode]

They were able to do a lot of beneficial research because they didn’t have to deal with cumbersome regulations and roadblocks.

And if they didn’t do it, someone else would have lined up to take advantage of the opportunities.

Edit: If it isn’t clear, I am being sarcastic.

[lm28469]

It depends how you see things. imho some things are intrinsically wrong, doing them because "someone else would have lined up to take advantage of the opportunities" doesn't change the fact that it's wrong in the first place.

Just the same way that if something wrong is done by a lot of people it doesn't make it right (smoking, drinking &c.).

[balabaster]

What if the alternative is to be shot yourself? Where do you morals stand then?

Unfortunately our morals are easily swayed when the alternative choice is death.

[perfmode]

Coercion undermines agency.

[icebraining]

How is that relevant here?

[matz1]

>Science is above this.

Yes, thats probably what Nazi thought too. Above the cost of human life.