Technologists need their own Hippocratic Oath...Now!

“People will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think” -Aldous Huxley

?As technologists, we are failing society. We are not taking responsibility for the unintended consequences of 40 years of rapid technological expansion. There is no question that we are impacting the hearts, minds, and souls of humans around the world like never before. We can no longer be certain that this technological progress is a net good for the world. Technology continues to diminish, not enhance individuality, nuanced thought, overall health, personal privacy, and the ability to exchange information and ideas. We are now in an ever-expanding abyss of isolated groupthink with an imprudent embrace of "rule by experts."

The Hippocratic Oath is named after the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, who lived nearly 2,500 years ago. He is widely considered to be its author, although its true origins are uncertain.?The modern oath was re-written by Dr. Louis Lasagna in 1964 and is the one that most medical professionals recite, although variations do exist.

I believe the technology profession, now more than ever, needs a similar oath. Why?

Roughly 22 billion records were leaked on the Dark Web in 2020, putting the identities of millions of people at risk [source: ID Agent].?

Almost 40% of teen girls who spend more than five hours a day on social media show symptoms of depression [source: Millennium Cohort Study]. Doctors and psychiatrists are increasingly confident we should classify our digital devices as addictive, not unlike cigarettes or gambling.

In a 2021 Gallup poll, when asked about COVID-19, 35% of those polled in the US believed over half of those infected would require hospitalization for the disease. Meanwhile, only 18% correctly stated that the risk of hospitalization was somewhere between 1% and 5%. How could the general public be this deluded in the “information age” about a topic that saturated media coverage and news feeds for nearly 18 months? This disastrous outcome is in part the result of algorithms, platforms, and decisions by technologists. Instead of adhering to an accepted ethical code, technologists are sanctioning an abuse of power by those who seek to ban and censor unorthodox views and criticisms to create an epistocracy in which only a certain subset of the population can wield societal power as only they are deemed informed.

People are starting to talk about the need for change, which is a positive sign. However, recent conversations led by whistleblowers and technocrats have often only acknowledged part of the problem, with the pretext being that what is needed is more oversight or "fact-checkers." I find this line of thinking disingenuous and deliberate in trying to transfer technological power and control from one small group of individuals to just another small group of individuals whom the public is supposed to believe are worthy of such power and control. I firmly believe the path forward is not about the oversight of centralized technological power; it is about the dissolution of centralized and monopolistic powers.

For thousands of years, the Hippocratic Oath has served as a guide, a gate, and a gauge for medical ethics and the protection of an individual’s most precious right, the right to life. Why can it not work for technology now?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Oath of Technological Illumination By: Brian Michael Stack

I swear to uphold this pledge to the best of my ability and judgment:

I will respect and acknowledge the achievements of engineers, programmers, designers, data scientists, and analysts whose steps I walk and whose shoulders I stand on, and I will continue to foster an environment that gladly shares such knowledge.

I will build technology for the benefit of humanity, following all processes and procedures that are required while avoiding the trap of compromising a person’s data privacy and anonymity in favor of data usefulness.

I will remember and always consider Merton’s law of unintended consequences when making significant changes to systems and processes, and I will, to the best of my ability, cast aside the allure of short-termism, dogmatism, and centralized power.

I will not be ashamed to say, "I do not know," nor will I be insecure about calling on my colleagues when further analysis may be required.

I will embrace diversity of thought and will actively seek out contrarian views before finalizing any decision with significant impact on the systems and processes that consumers and citizens may engage with.

I will stand firm against the creation of algorithms and processes that impede on the free speech and exchange of information of all individuals and groups, since I affirm that the ultimate good desired is better reached by the free trade in ideas.

I must always remember that I am not changing software code, algorithms, and design palettes; I am changing the moods, perspectives, behaviors, health, hopes, and fears of individuals, and I acknowledge the great power and great responsibility that I hold.

I will prevent the addictive nature of technology and acknowledge and encourage decisions in which less technology and less engagement can produce a healthier outcome for consumers and citizens.

Above all, I will always take responsibility for what I create and act to preserve the highest standards of my profession, human morality, and illumination. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and be respected by the society in which I live.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inspirational Acknowledgements for this article:

• BNNT
• https://mkdale.github.io/techoath/
• https://www.techpledge.org/