[finolex1]

Computer Science is pretty different from arithmetic (heck, that's a philosophical question in itself). Looking at the table of contents, he doesn't seem to be saying algorithms or data structures have ethics - but that a lot of recent developments in Computer Science can help us reckon with issues of what constitutes intelligence or autonomy, and the ethical ramifications that follow.

[crimsonalucard]

That's what makes it all seem illegitimate. The ethical ramifications of AI are a human quality outside of the computer science itself.

Computer science as a discipline like arithmetic has nothing to do with the human condition, it is just an aspect of logic. If philosophy purports to be more fundamental than logic or computer science why does it go on to talk about liberal arts topics of things like ethics or religion? It seems jumbled and disorganized and lacking of formal rigor.

Think about it. To use the analogy of arithmetic, the more fundamental theory is number theory. It dives into a lower level description of arithmetic. But then suddenly it starts talking about ethics and the moral implications of using arithmetic on human society. Is this social studies or formal logic?

[mcguire]

The practice of computer science is a human activity and therefore involves ethics. Further, the argument that computer science is ethically neutral is itself a question of philosophical ethics.

[crimsonalucard]

The practice of mathematics also is a human activity and therefore has ethics when viewed from the context of human activity. However, math itself is not ethical. It just is.

The same is said of computer science. What you do on the job as a software engineer, is more engineering and applying math and programming in a human activity. The disciplines themselves, algebra, category theory, topology, calculus, number theory, computer science are all devoid of ethics or morals.

Combining ethics and science is like combining church and state.

[abdullahkhalids]

is there any non-human math you are aware of? The categorization of mathematics into certain disciplines (algebra/topology/etc) is also a human choice. As is the choice to separate the philosophy class from the calculus class. They are all human choices, which reflect our outlook to life. I choose not to demarcate mathematics and philosophy because as far as I know only humans do mathematics, and every choice they make in that doing, teaching or researching has implications, even if tiny, for the good or bad that happens to this world.

[crimsonalucard]

All math is non-human.

What does the quantity one have to do with a human? Nothing. The only thing you are doing is giving it a name. "One" The categorization of mathematics is just nomenclature. We choose the name and categorizations of something that already exists independent of the human experience.

[sjg007]

Just read the intro, he explains what he means by ethics. There are two ethical questions to answer with respect to computer science. The first is are there decisions we should allow computers to make?

[crimsonalucard]

What nuclear missile trajectories should we allow mathematics to calculate? Yes, it's an ethical question that you can ask, but do you realize that this does not mean ethics is part of mathematics?

IF you can see how the question above doesn't force mathematics to be part of ethics. Then that same line of reasoning will help you realize how computer science is the exact same thing. The science of computing is entirely different from the application of computing (aka programming) side of it.

If philosophy purports to be a lower level description of mathematics/computing... why is it talking about ethics? The heart of computing relies on axioms, anything lower level then that would be an examination of what is an axiom? and what is logic? Not human rights.

[crististm]

I can understand your argument. Science necessarily must be void of any ethics in order to be science.

Then, people confuse ethics of what you do with science with the "ethics of science". It doesn't make any sense. But even if it's a thought contraction, it's imprecise enough to warrant a debate.

[sjg007]

You are over thinking this.