Today’s ethical dilemmas are being decided by tech bros. How can they keep their compass straight?
Tech bros are for the first time poised to become pivotal players in highly sensitive sectors: national security, space exploration, and more. Most recently, NATO’s €1B Innovation Fund announced investments in eight startups and VC firms with a focus on emerging military and defense technologies.
As the startup ecosystem has become more sophisticated, it is now starting to disrupt these tightly controlled sectors, which were until recently the domain of governments and legacy institutions.
Take these examples: Space is quickly becoming the next battleground for geopolitics — and private companies are now dominating cosmic exploration. Military conflicts are being defined by cutting-edge technologies that bring down costs and increase manufacturing capabilities. New industries, such as consumer-grade satellite internet, have both civilian and military use cases — and can completely transform the course of a war.
Geoengineering will probably try and reverse human-caused environmental degradation (solar shields are just one example). AI’s evolution will play out in unforeseeable ways as it starts being put to use in autonomous weapons and social engineering.
The
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
These spaces are evolving so rapidly that startups are going to become critical players in giving nations the upper hand.
But can we really trust founders with no legal, ethical, or political training to launch satellites into space and send drones into conflict areas? We have an obligation to make sure this generation of entrepreneurs assumes the responsibility that comes with their newfound power, and are prepared for the ethical questions that will have an impact far beyond their company.
So how do founders figure out the lines in the sand in a sector they themselves are carving out? When government expediency — and sometimes lethargy — mean the rules are still unwritten? It’s as much a personal ethical question as it is a societal and political one. Hopefully this can serve as a starting place.
Have a decentralized leadership
Startups can’t rely on the morality of the founder alone to stay on the right course. SBF was an effective altruist, but clearly if you amass too much power, self aggrandizement can corrupt your decision making.
As the company comes up against ethical questions, the answers should never come from one person. Pick competent, experienced people to share your control and decision making powers with.
On a structural level, construct the company in a way that power will always be distributed — even amid changing internal and external conditions (a new administration takes power, or the CEO gets fired).
Separate the roles of chairman and the CEO. Set up a multidisciplinary board of directors and a separate advisory board. Avoid the temptation to set up a “friendly” board; source members from a range of sectors if possible — tech, regulatory, societal, and academic. Members shouldn’t have a shared background, POV or interest group — some should be third parties with no stake in the company at all.
Vet all members, especially focusing on times they’ve had to decide on ethical questions. Choosing an odd number of people for the boards will hopefully lead to more fair debate.
Of course, this structure has to accommodate a startup’s need to be agile and quick. You can keep your boards relatively tight, as long as you select for the quality of the people on it.
On another note, one lesson that we learned from OpenAI is that making the company a non-profit can create friction between financial needs and company values. Whether or not you adopt this business model, be honest and transparent about the mission of the company and its need to generate returns, and ensure your investors’ vision for the company is the same as yours.
Be future facing
If you are just focused on the “not failing” part of running a business, on making it to next quarter and next year, you’re not going to be thinking far enough ahead to actually put guardrails in place for the future. Regulations for AI were never developed because society wasn’t optimistic enough to see it coming.
You, on the other hand, should always be planning five to 10 years ahead — ideally envisioning the most advanced scenario for your technology. That will get you foreseeing potential dilemmas in how your tech can be used, or misused; the kinds of customers and investors you could attract, and who you may have to say “no” to; and any long-term societal impact.
Structurally, you should have a future-facing charter that broaches ethical and philosophical questions, so that board members have some guidelines within which to establish accountability and make critical company decisions. Consider defining terms of use for your product early on, preempting potential abuses of the product by future users.
Work on yourself
On a personal level, founders should seek to be truly interdisciplinary. Being informed on a broad spectrum of political, social, and philosophical topics will give you a firmer foundation to foresee the impact of your decisions on the world, choose the right advisors for the company, and know what questions to ask when exploring the boundaries you want to operate within.
Be clear with yourself and your entire team about the values you hold dear and will not compromise on, whichever direction the company may take. As your product takes shape, write down a set of values or ethical guidelines, including “red lines,” that will get you to your end goal without doing harm.
Your framework will be more robust and accepted by your company as a whole if you involve your team in the discussion. If setting these ethical boundaries is challenging for you, it’s all the more important to surround yourself with expert advisors, trusted friends, and mentors who can guide your thinking.
These are not hypothetical boundaries, and you need to truly commit to what the end result may look like, even if it’s painful business wise. I’ve met several founders who’ve established a groundbreaking product, but have walked away from huge markets because they were not willing to work with a certain client or under a certain administration.
For example, you may be approached by military contractors who are likely to use your technology for aggressive purposes. Or you may be operating in a country where the politics turns against your values.
Long term, walking away from these red lines will often be the wisest business decision too. Not compromising your values demonstrates the general commitment of the founder, and the resilience of the company to continue operating without having to bend itself to every revenue opportunity.
Make sure the path you’re setting yourself on is ethically acceptable to you and the people whose opinions you respect — and that no matter how circumstances play out, you are well prepared, well informed, and well accompanied enough to make a decision you can stand by.
Semyon Dukach is Founding Partner of One Way Ventures, a VC firm funding exceptional immigrant founders. A Ukrainian-American, he came to the US as a child refugee in 1979. He is the former Managing Director of Techstars (Boston), and an angel investor in over 100 companies.
