"As a scientist, I must follow my obligation to the truth, reporting what I find in my experiments, whether I like the results or not. My focus is not on determining whether I like or approve of something; it matters only that I can unveil it."<p>I get the scientist part, the dispassionate reporter of what happened, regardless of what I want to have happened. That last phrase though - "it matters only that I can unveil it" - bothers me. I think this is a fundamental error of science. The pendulum has swung too far, to say that it is not only ok, but indeed required to ignore morality. To not ask even "should I be attempting to unveil" this. The opposite side of the spectrum is dangerous as well (not venturing into questions ever, because of overly strict moral codes or dogmas).<p>Interesting to see that an AI researcher holds much the same set of fears I'd expect many computer science type workers to hold. I was expecting a set of counter-culture fears instead of what I consider the "typical" positions.