Reading notes for Code Fellows!
This article made me consider for the first time the possibilities of encountering a potential situation like the one the author found himself in. People consume the code we, as developers, produce. For many of these people, it is not hard to believe what they read on a website or computer. We as publishers in this medium, have a duty and responsibility to provide reliable, unbiased information. It also struck me about how long the author has had to carry a measure of guilt around with him, because he didn’t question what he was asked to code and perhaps refuse to do it. I would like to believe I will be able to recognize a situation like this should it find me and that I will make an ethically correct choice in the moment.
This was an article that should make people think. I think this article also held my attention because some of the very questions brought up in the article are points my wife and I were discussing only a couple of weeks ago. It does not surprise me to read about the double-standard between piloted vehicles and self-driving vehicles. The purposed rules for self-piloting cars put forth in Germany make sense to me (and apparently anyone not riding in the vehicle in question). The fact that human beings will most of the time, act in their own self-interest, may panic, or both is traditionally accepted. This is despite the fact that it tends to result in more injuries or loss of human life than a purposed self-piloting car might if it was following the guidelines put forth. The programmers of these vehicles, no matter how well they do the job, will not be afforded the benefit of the doubt that a human behind the wheel will, even when they are at fault in an incident.