In a sense humanity has already done that, just with a lot more of the given animal intact and less hi-tech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon

Not an endorsement or a condemnation, just something I learned of recently and found surprising.

Why is that the concern of the authors of this paper?

Why wouldn't it be? They worked on it.

Because it's not in scope.

Ethical concerns on human experimentation are very much in scope.

I’m kind of sick of how readily the non-managerial tech world accepts “what happens is someone else does this immoral thing before us?!” rhetoric as a real answer to questioning whether or not we should contribute our talent and ideas to something that we, deep down, know is bad for fellow humans.

> rhetoric as a real answer

Why is it rhetoric? This goes beyond whatever malignant thing was perceived in this study, but why is it a rhetorical non-answer?

> we, deep down, know is bad

this feels like real rhetoric.

> Why is it rhetoric? This goes beyond whatever malignant thing was perceived in this study, but why is it a rhetorical non-answer?

You seem hung-up on my using the word rhetoric. Just so we’re on the same page here:

> rhetoric, n : the art of speaking or writing effectively: b)the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

The business writing class I took in college was called Business Rhetoric. It’s not a bad word.

If you’re crafting arguments to get other people to support specific actions or products or policies or whatever, that is unambiguously rhetoric.

> this feels like real rhetoric.

Sure? Rhetoric that implores people to value their principles over theoretical security concerns or FOMO or greed? I wouldn’t exactly call that rakish.

It’s a non-answer because if you really feel doing something is bad, consider yourself a consequential actor in the world whose contributions meaningfully advance the projects you work on, then why would you want to help someone be there first to do a bad thing? If you don’t feel it’s bad, then there’s no problem. You’re just living your life. That is clearly not the position expressed by the content I responded to. If there are actual concrete concerns that don’t essentially boil down to “well they’re going to make that money before I do,” then that would be an actual answer.

> It’s not a bad word.

When used in the negative sense it is, per https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rhetoric

"disapproving -> clever language that sounds good but is not sincere or has no real meaning"

Are you implying you mean something other than this sense of the word?

Calling your criticism a stretch would be far too charitable. I made it clear what I meant and I’ve got better things to do than nitpick over semantics.

No you haven't but whatever. I have better things to do that argue with pedants.

Jeez. It’s not every day you get called a pedant by someone that wants to pick apart your usage of one word.

That's your contention, not mine. Your whole argument was bad.

"Implying" seems kind of weak, the person you're responding to shared the definition they are using.

Yes, after the fact; that is after my response they provided a definition.

> the person you're responding to shared the definition they are using

No, technically they didn't. They provided a definition, they didn't say it was the one they are using here. If it's not pedantic tangent, it seem correct to assume that is the definition they are using, but that's what "Implying" means, so I trying to explicitly get a clarification on that.

"Why?" you might ask? Not every discussion is in good faith. The more that is assumed, the more leeway you allow for people to weasel out of countered arguments.

Yes. They provided their definition in response to your (mis?)reading of their original words. They are not the party bringing bad faith to this conversation.

Oh? And who is? provide receipts please.