CS should take a few hints from more mature fields (I don't mean that pejoratively- it's just that it's a very recent field). In particular, let's look at what biology did once it was technically possibly to splice genes. A lot of biologists were terrified by what they believed the consequences of gene splicing were (anything from genetic social dystopias and superdiseases).
They gathered a bunch of data and had a meeting in Asilomar (a pretty conference center in the middle of nowhere on the CA coast). In addition to the scientists who actually had the technical ability to splice genes (~100 humans at that point had the requisite skills), some lawyers and philosophers also attended. They argued a bunch. And at the end of the day, they agreed on a voltunary moratorium on splicing, even though the argument for immediately, direct harm had not yet been made (precautionary principle).
Very reasonable predictions were made. Some of the more irresponsible claims were tamped down as being overly irrational. Some basic rules were applied on how to minimize collateral damage. Some strong rules were applied on disease-causing experiments.
It seems, looking back with the luxury of historical distance, that they chose wisely. It was probably because the level-headed people who focused on clear and present dangers, not absurd hypotheticals, managed to win the day.
Today, the logical conclusion of those decisions are just starting to be felt; we now have technology that permits us to make germ-line modifications (those are permanent, inherited changes), and we're starting to do actual trials with newly born children (this is, IMO, one of the most extraordinary moral and philosophical developments of my lifetime).
It's unclear to me whether CS has the same level-headed maturity that lead to this. Nor do I think people in CS can really predict the indirect outcomes of their technology. Instead, I think CS people have an obligation to push the technology as far as it can go within a community-determined set of boundaries, and report the direct implications thereof to the general public, who will then (indirectly through democratic mechanisms) create laws that restrict certain applications.
Most biologists are either in academic or government employed and do not need to even think about money/making a profit.
People working in CS are mostly in industry and do not have 10+ year timeframes to leisurely discuss ideas.
And what CS inventions are as impactful as atomic bombs (as someone mentioned above?) I cannot think of any CS inventions that warrant such extended ethical discussion.
The only exception would be computer scientists working on weapons in the defense industry. They should absolutely be held back by ethical concerns like this.
actually, the asilomar conference touched quite heavily on the rapidly burgeoning biotech industry.
I have a fair amount of expereince, being a biologist who did gene cloning who now works on large scale machine learning models.
TBH I can see a wide range of surveillance-related technologies enabled by CS that are as impactful (but not as explosively so) as atomic weapons (I think you actually mean ICBMs, since atomic weapons aren't an existential threat, while ICBMs are).
I suspect you may mean that ICBMs with atomic weapons are existential threats. Most people would not regard an ICBM equipped with a conventional explosive warhead as being capable of annihilating humanity.
If anything, this should hint at the difficulty of forecasting. The full impacts of some technologies cannot be understood without also knowing what they synergize with.
That said, ICBMs with (conventional) thermobaric warhead could do a lot of damage- you could effectively take out a medium sized country's industrial sector in an hour.
The difference between the fields of biology and computer science, is that CS is way more abstract. It would be like asking, “what are the ethical implications of math?”
To this end, we need to distinguish computer science (theory) from technology (application) – it is the latter of which has direct effects on society.
They gathered a bunch of data and had a meeting in Asilomar (a pretty conference center in the middle of nowhere on the CA coast). In addition to the scientists who actually had the technical ability to splice genes (~100 humans at that point had the requisite skills), some lawyers and philosophers also attended. They argued a bunch. And at the end of the day, they agreed on a voltunary moratorium on splicing, even though the argument for immediately, direct harm had not yet been made (precautionary principle).
Very reasonable predictions were made. Some of the more irresponsible claims were tamped down as being overly irrational. Some basic rules were applied on how to minimize collateral damage. Some strong rules were applied on disease-causing experiments.
It seems, looking back with the luxury of historical distance, that they chose wisely. It was probably because the level-headed people who focused on clear and present dangers, not absurd hypotheticals, managed to win the day.
Today, the logical conclusion of those decisions are just starting to be felt; we now have technology that permits us to make germ-line modifications (those are permanent, inherited changes), and we're starting to do actual trials with newly born children (this is, IMO, one of the most extraordinary moral and philosophical developments of my lifetime).
It's unclear to me whether CS has the same level-headed maturity that lead to this. Nor do I think people in CS can really predict the indirect outcomes of their technology. Instead, I think CS people have an obligation to push the technology as far as it can go within a community-determined set of boundaries, and report the direct implications thereof to the general public, who will then (indirectly through democratic mechanisms) create laws that restrict certain applications.