To be honest it was not my intent to write a post about ethics. My aim was to begin a series of posts around Digital Twins. My work in this space has lead me to thinking a lot about AI, cognitive evolution, and ethics in technology.

When talking about technology, whenever I start talking about “ethics” it seems to surprise people. It isn’t something people expect an architect to be thinking about. At first I was equally surprised they weren’t thinking about it. Then I realized most technologists are trained not to. Ethics is seen as an impediment to progress. From a short-term [three to five year] perspective I see that point. What gets missed in that short-term view is that we run the risk of long-term damage that can’t be walked back. And let’s be honest. Long-term ethical design is hard. There is no simple mathematical equation we can apply. It deals in probabilities and educated guess-work. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t value in the activity.

Full disclaimer, I’ve never formally studied ethics. So in my journey down this road I looked to other areas that have. Mainly the Hippocratic Oath. Most of us know this from film and TV as “First, do no harm.” Simple, right? So what’s all this talk about ethics being hard?

This is the full modern version of the oath used by many US medical schools today.

• I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
• I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
• I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
• I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
• I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
• I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
• I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
• I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
• I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
• If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Not so simple anymore is it? “First, do no harm,” does have historic merit, but is more a convenient representation of the oath. An avatar of meaning if you will. A simple truth open to interpretation allows for conflict and rich story telling. Hollywood has thrust it into the public mindset as “The Oath.”

There’s another oath used by many medical schools called the Declaration of Geneva. While it’s been updated over the years, the Declaration of Geneva followed World War II. Intended to address atrocities of the war, it’s more direct and tied to the medical profession. Yet; it lacks the poetry of the oath above. The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath is also general enough to apply to other disciplines. For fun here’s a version of the oath modified for technologists. The modifications are in bold for comparison.

• I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
• I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those whose steps I walk in, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
• I will apply, for the benefit of the enterprise, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of over-engineering and business nihilism (technology for technologies sake).
• I will remember that there is art to technology as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the architects precision or the engineers skill.
• I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed.
• If it is given me to advance the company, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to do damage; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
• I will remember that I do not treat an org. chart, a a data domain, but an entire enterprise, whose issues may affect the companies employees and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for my charge.
• I will prevent problems whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
• I will use my knowledge and craft to guide my business partners and fellow practitioners into the future.
• I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings.
• If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of helping those in need.

This was as a fun exercise to get me thinking more about ethics as they relate to the craft. For the most part I simply changed some words or phrases. This was to orient it from the medical profession to technology. However; I do want to call out two things.

First, I added a completely new item. “I will use my knowledge and craft to guide my business partners and fellow practitioners into the future.” This goes to what I see as a primary difference between the two professions. Advancements in technology seek to disrupt the status quo to bring transformation. Advancements in medicine seek to preserve the status quo to extend life.

Second, I didn’t touch the item that follows it at all. “I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings.” This goes to the heart of my interested in ethics. We forget that what we do can consequences on a larger scale. Technology advancements have the potential to displace large portions of the workforce.

It troubles me to hear CEOs and CIOs dismiss these impacts out of hand. Many of them site the industrial revolution as having created more jobs than it removed. They skip over that it took decades to get to that point, and that some displaced workers never recovered at all. One could argue that the social disparity this caused was a major factor leading to World War I. Funny how large-scale war leads to job creation. I hope we do better than that as we head into what I’ll call the AI revolution.

These C-level executives also fail to consider a major difference between the industrial revolution and the AI revolution. Advances in technology are shortening the cycles of job disruption faster than ever before. It’s true that we’ll create new jobs as we automate others. But, we’ll automate a non-trivial proportion of those new jobs within a few years. In some cases we may find we are automating new human job gaps faster than we can fill them. This turbulence will have lasting affects that will be hard to predict. Our best hope is not in ignoring or dismissing this fact, thinking it will all work out in the end. Our best hope is in identifying those paths that lead to bad ends so that we can avoid them.

A prediction of ruin is not made to call for you to repent your sins. It’s made to call for you to disprove it. There are two types of futurist predictions. Those intended as a beacon, and those intended as a warning. We need both in equal balance of each other. This is how we navigate the future. As leaders and creators in technology, it’s our duty to be active participants in shaping the future. We can’t be blind to the consequences of our actions. For every Art of the Possible (AoP) we create, we need to be equally aware of it’s Portent of Calamitous Outcome (PoCO).

I suppose what I’m saying is that we need to remove our blinders and recognize where our decisions take us. Embrace the darker possibilities of technology to navigate around them. Explore the edges with courage, while being mindful of the cliff.