Before starting this experience, please go through all of the “Foundations” readings
Read Crafting Code Responsibly: A Developer’s Odyssey with ChatGPT.
Exercise: Analyzing a Promotion Decision Through the Lens of Responsible ChatGPT Development
Instructions: Read the following case discussion and then answer the questions that follow, drawing upon the principles and concerns outlined in the “Mastering Responsible ChatGPT Development: A Guide for Efficient and Ethical Coding” article.
Sara, a talented software engineer with eight years of experience in the company, recently applied for a promotion to a senior software developer position. Sara has consistently demonstrated exceptional technical skills, leadership qualities, and a strong commitment to the company’s goals. She has contributed significantly to various projects, showing a deep understanding of software development principles and innovative problem-solving abilities.
However, despite her qualifications and years of service, Sara was passed up for the promotion in favor of Charlie, a relatively new employee with only two years of experience. Charlie, a tall white male, is known for his proficiency in using artificial intelligence (AI) for software development tasks. Charlie is now Sara’s manager, but she finds it difficult and unproductive to work with him due to his low competency, limited technical knowledge, and lack of experience in successfully developing software systems. She feels that she is continually educating Charlie on basic technical issues and tools (such as using GitHub) and what to do on the project.
While Charlie’s skills in AI are commendable, many in the company were surprised by the decision to promote him over Sara, given her extensive experience and proven track record Sara feels disheartened and demotivated by the outcome, questioning the fairness and transparency of the promotion process. She wonders if her gender or years of service played a role in the decision and whether she has been unfairly overlooked despite her qualifications and contributions to the company.
The decision has sparked concerns among employees about potential biases in the promotion process. Some speculate that unconscious biases, such as gender or racial bias, may have influenced the decision-making process. Others argue that Charlie’s proficiency in AI, a rapidly growing field in software engineering, may have been prioritized over Sara’s broader skill set and experience.
Take the companies position and argue why it was ethical to favor Charlie’s proficiency in AI over Sara’s broader skill set and experience. Now take the contrary position and argue why it was unethical to disregard Sara’s experience and proven track record in favor of Charlie’s proficiency in AI. If you were making the promotion decision, what would you decide and why?
Pick one of the following questions and discuss answers with your team. Each team will provide a brief report on their discussion.
Considering the section on “Leveraging ChatGPT for Accelerated Development”, discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of prioritizing a candidate with AI proficiency, like Charlie, over a more experienced candidate like Sara who may not have the same stated AI expertise. How might the company’s decision align with or deviate from the responsible integration of AI in the development workflow?
The article highlights “Understanding the Pitfalls” of integrating ChatGPT, including “Possible anomalies,” “Negative practices,” “Depending on the phrase input,” “Limited understanding of context,” and “Potential for Bias”. How might these pitfalls manifest if a software development team is led by a manager whose primary strength lies in using AI tools but lacks fundamental software development knowledge, as described in the case of Charlie?
The sections on “Biased Training Data and Ethical Considerations” and “Ethical Concerns in ChatGPT Usage,” particularly “Bias Mitigation in Code Generation”, discuss the importance of addressing biases in AI. In the context of this promotion decision, how might unconscious biases have played a role, even if the stated rationale was Charlie’s AI proficiency? How does this relate to the ethical responsibility of ensuring fairness and impartiality?
The article emphasizes the “Accuracy of Code Suggestions” and the need for developers to “thoroughly verify the code generated by ChatGPT”. Given Sara’s experience of continually educating Charlie on basic technical issues, what potential risks could arise regarding code quality and security if the team heavily relies on AI-generated code under Charlie’s leadership
Reflecting on the section about “Manipulative Use” and the emphasis on “Upholding Ethical Considerations,” could the prioritization of AI proficiency over fundamental software development skills be seen as a potentially skewed or shortsighted approach by the company? How might this impact the team’s long-term productivity and the professional growth of experienced engineers like Sara?
Considering the “Significance of Responsibility” highlighted in the conclusion of the article, what are the key responsibilities the company overlooked or should have better considered when making this promotion decision? How could they have approached this situation more responsibly and ethically, balancing the potential of AI with the value of experience and proven technical competence?
This exercise asks you to engage in an ethics debate surrounding a promotion decision described in the provided Case Discussion. The case involves Sara, an experienced software engineer, being passed over for a senior position in favor of Charlie, a less experienced employee known for his AI proficiency. We will analyze the ethical dimensions of this decision through the lens of the principles outlined in the Crafting Code Responsibly: A Developer’s Odyssey with ChatGPT article.
Participants will be divided into two teams:
Team A: Advocates for the Company’s Decision: This team will argue that the company’s decision to promote Charlie was ethically justifiable, considering the growing importance of AI in software development.
Team B: Advocates for Sara: This team will argue that the company’s decision to promote Charlie over Sara was ethically questionable, raising concerns about fairness, the value of experience, and the responsible integration of AI in the workplace.
Each team will have the opportunity to present their arguments, followed by a rebuttal period and a final summary. Teams are given some time to prepare to presents their arguments.
Extra points for explicitly referring to issues discussed in the article.
Each team will have a designated time to respond to the arguments presented by the opposing team. This is an opportunity to challenge the other side’s points and further strengthen their own arguments by referencing the Case Discussion and the article.
Each team will provide a brief summary of their main arguments and reiterate their stance on the ethical implications of the promotion decision.