> basically move software engineering in its whole somewhere else.

You don't think that is true in other professions? You don't think I could get my accounts done in India, or a bridge designed in China? The regulatory environment in my country would still apply. Your answer is just exceptionalism

Management not having to listen to engineers is the structural problem. How do managers know which concerns that engineers bring up are actually relevant? How do engineers know which concerns have real world consequences (without having a incredibly high burden of proof)?

Having regulation, or standardisation is a step toward producing a common language to express these problems and have them be taken seriously.

Leadership gets a strong signal - ignoring engineers surfacing regulated issues has large costs. Company might be sued and executives are criminally liable (if discovered to have known about the violation).

Engineering gets the authority and liability to sign off on things - the equivalent of “chartership” in regular fields with the same penalties. This gives them a strong personal reason to surface things.

It’s possible that this is harder for software engineering in its entirety, but there is definitely low hanging fruit (password storage and security etc).

> In the software industry management rarely ever listens to concerns brought up by engineering even if it's technical concerns.

Yet they have to listen to a Chartered Accountant or a Chartered Engineer. Maybe it would be as much in the engineers interest to have a professional body as it would for the public

So much AI statementmaking seems to be structured around "It's not X, it's not Y, it's not Z [emdash] it's A" and "What's important is '[experiential first-person descriptive quote]'". Maybe they overfit on Linked In data.

Fair point — I contradicted myself. What I meant is: the first step doesn't require waiting for regulation (just have the conversation). But long-term, some form of professional accountability would help. Those are two different timescales, not alternatives. I wrote it badly.

And no, not vibebait — just a poorly structured comment from a guy with a fever typing on his phone.

I wonder how many programmers working today are coming through universities though? I'm self-taught, most of my programmers friends are as well, same with most of my colleagues back when I worked. I can remember maybe the name of 3-4 people in total, out of maybe ~30 or so, who went to university for computer science before they started working.

In my experience CompSci ethics modules are about hacking or mishandling user data or code theft... i.e. things that companies don't want their employees doing.

I've yet to see an ethics module that covers ethics from the perspective of ethics over profit.

Mine had one over a decade ago. After graduating, the industry decided that developing everything we just got done establishing was unethical, was the hot topic to innovate for the next decade. I never worked at any of those places and still got burned ethically in much more indirectly unethical product streams in the finance and insurance sectors. To be honest, if there is really good money to be made at this point, there is a safe bet that if you dig deep enough, there is an unethical core to it. Most of my peers assuaged themselves with some variant of "I'm a programmer, not an ethicist, and philosophy doesn't put food on my table. So sadly, the problem seems much more systemic and a priori to the capitalistic optimization function.

Whereas accountants, lawyers, civil engineers and surveyors have to do postgraduate training with their institute to become chartered.

Interestingly many accountants in the UK never did a degree (very many more did a degree in something unrelated), but came through the technician route of evening, weekend or day release study. Many do their chartered training at weekends.