Truth is never simple. Engineers have been "bullied" out of the debate (this is not really how I see it but ok) because they often hold beliefs that renders the debate impossible. The narrative of "engineer is a pure discipline" or that "tools have no political color" are still strong despite countless counter-evidence. In the case of software-engineers that are left alone in the hands of managers and their interests, the social devastation that follows is very evident just by looking at the news.
> So I think my position is the reverse of yours: if business leaders, activists, etc want to meaningfully impact the AI debate, they should engage with the engineers actually building it -- rather than having a debate among themselves.
This is a real and pressing concern for many of them but it's not easy. I'm an engineer and I'm trying to do just that, or at least bring the existing discourse to the engineers if I can't bring the engineers to the discourse. But believe me, the cultural and personal resistance is extremely strong, first of all because it forces them to re-evaluate the belief system and take responsability for what they are doing and what they did in the past. Staying in an ethical comfort zone where you can ignore the consequences of your action is much easier.
"No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour" - like FOSS itself - is an absolutely huge win for the corporates.
Related: I used to know someone who designed missile guidance systems. His work was a purely theoretical problem solving exercise for him until he saw a missile he had worked on being used in news footage of a war.
That was when he realised that even though he wasn't discriminating against some fields of endeavour, the technology he was building most certainly did.
For example, many defense research labs have “red team” projects where new capabilities are developed strictly to understand adversary capabilities, feasibility / cost to extend a legacy system with modern tech, and many similar things. Kind of like Myth Busters but applied to questions about an adversary’s capabilities.
Some of these research labs are even joined with academic institutions that carry with them a strict ethics mandate that any and all such work can only be theoretical or defensive in nature, to assess and defend against threats, anticipate new threats or debunk claimed capabilities from existing adversaries, but absolutely never to carry out an offensive agenda, enhance existing attack capability or anything similar.
In a situation like that, you absolutely could be greatly surprised & upset to learn your defensive “myth busters” research is turned around and repurposed by another team or something to enhance attack capabilities.
It could be similar with computer security as well. Imagine putting your best effort into developing an attack, exploit or malware because you think it’s purely to determine if something could be done by an adversary, or to highlight a weakness purely for defensive purposes... only to find that it’s used to directly attack someone else after the research leaves your hands.
MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory for example was originally opposed by the university president at the time with huge community backlash against the university becoming connected to a military research lab.
Part of the original charter of the lab was that its scope of operation was very, very strictly restricted to US air defense, and very strictly not the development of offensive capabilities. There was even a huge report commissioned by the university to detail exactly the defense needs and set boundaries around them in terms of what projects could possibly be approved for funding at the lab. The “no attack” component of this was a giant, first-order constraint of the whole multi-million dollar endeavor to even create the facility at all.
On the other hand, I do agree many other cases could be like what you suggested. Just saying not all.. and some of them would be directly, loudly predicated on “defense only” mandates where it would be a huge surprise if the research was subverted later.
Surely you can see that this has no logical bearing on whether any given tool has inherent "political color". Some tools, like some foodstuffs, could conceivably be inherently incompatible with particular religions, for example. The OSD doesn't take any position on that possibility because it's not regulating the nature of the tool, just what the license contains.
Bits don't have color. Nor does arithmetic. The people who use them do, and the things those people do with bits and arithmetic might. It depends on who you ask... and what their politics suggest the appropriate color-carrying context is.
This is somewhere between slander and trying to explain away other social groups bullying engineers.
The truth is much simpler: engineers have responded to being bullied out of the debate by simply ignoring it, and implementing AI without concern for the results of that debate. Engineers have that power -- they can unilaterally change society by implementing a new kind of mind without approval or buy-in from other parties.
So I think my position is the reverse of yours: if business leaders, activists, etc want to meaningfully impact the AI debate, they should engage with the engineers actually building it -- rather than having a debate among themselves.