[p-e-w]

> This does indeed seem comically evil.

And I have yet to see a single paper like this where a researcher bails out and publicly says they refuse to work on such projects. Not one.

The most benign interpretation of this observation is that science is filled with spineless opportunists who don’t care who they hurt with what they create. A slightly less benign interpretation might be that many of these people are doing this deliberately, and getting off on the sense of power it gives them.

[QuadmasterXLII]

I was asked to train a neural network do detect how much pain a mouse was in- our partner company would be responsible for hurting and filming the mice. I refused and subsequently quit- this produced no paper and I don’t know if they got someone else to do it. I probably should have done something stronger.

[rightbyte]

When skip level bosses on my last job wanted to do boneheaded things in automotive design they usually had to keep asking different engineers until they got a yay.

When it is pushed from the top it is hard to stop at ground level.

[ShinyLeftPad]

We don't hear from researchers who just decide not to work on something without making a fuss.

[Cakez0r]

In their defence, don't shoot the messenger. Just because they published it doesn't mean that others haven't already discovered it. Better to know its possible than be completely ignorant.

[p-e-w]

> Just because they published it doesn't mean that others haven't already discovered it.

That’s irrelevant for the moral evaluation. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you choose not to kill anyone it won’t stop others from killing. But the fact that this is so doesn’t give you a license to kill.

[Arodex]

Then maybe publish the results, but don't publish the "how to".

[pishpash]

Would it be better if this was done on monkeys? Because people did that before this in silico digital brain stuff.