| > I just hope we spare some time to consider what other uses could come from what we enable. Not to make you feel like you overreacted at all, because this is a fantastic reply and I desperately wish I saw more awesome thinking like this around tech and ethics, but I read the OP as a shitpost, and was replying in kind. The only reason I can give stark commentary like that is because I've done a lot of ethics work on this field (first hire at my startup with an ethicist who helped craft our project mission statement and philosophies), and yeah, it could get REALLY, REALLY bad in terms of labor, privacy, and many other contexts. If you'd like my full perspective on how/why I build this stuff, I gave a lecture at CMU last year that goes over a lot of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M43u-iFPfMI Specifically on the affective state in technical development, I do think biometrics is interesting there, but absolutely not in a way that could be harnessed like I was joking about above (even though it would be because who are we even kidding these days). I did some work on this stuff around 8-9 years ago, a project I called the "Quantified Coder" (I was involved in the whole QuantifiedSelf thing for a while): https://youtu.be/52Ml_zax4A0?t=768 Please note that this talk happened before the current ML craze of "your face can tell us if you're a bad human" shit. It sounds FAR different now than I did then. There's neuroscience researching doing really great work on affective state of developers these days (like Chris Parnin, who came up here a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23046429) that I think will be legit helpful. Anyways, my reply was just riffing evilly on those ideas as a joke. Apologies though, forgot I was in an setting where that reply DEFINITELY might not have come off as (extremely stark) humor. |