Taking aim: ICO & CMA on harmful design
Designers and product managers, I urge you to pay attention to this new publication on ‘harmful design’ aka deceptive patterns. It’s a joint position paper by the ICO and CMA, the UK’s privacy and competition regulators respectively.
I wasn’t heavily involved in this work – I had my hands full with the privacy design guidance – and I’m no longer at the ICO. So I have some leeway to give my own (strictly personal) interpretation of this paper in a way the authors and employees can’t.
Have no doubt: this is a warning shot.
Two powerful regulators have joined forces to put industry on notice over deceptive patterns. The language is carefully couched but IMO the implication is clear. This is step one. Step two will be robust. I won’t be surprised to see direct enforcement (i.e. legal action against companies that keep using deceptive patterns) or strict policy stances (essentially, outright prohibitions) in the near-ish future.
It’s rare and difficult for regulators to join forces like this. Two regulators expressing their joint disapproval of the same design patterns: that’s huge. Not one big stick but two.
Here are the five patterns the paper highlights:
Harmful nudges
Confirmshaming
Biased framing
Bundled consent
Default settings
The paper gives specific, mocked-up examples, and both regulators explain why they’re concerned about each pattern, pointing to UK laws already in effect.
So, my advice: if you work for a technology team in the UK or on a digital product with UK customers, act now. Read the document. Identify whether you’re using these deceptive patterns. If so, remove them now. If you don’t have that authority, show the document (and this post too, if you like) to your most senior product leader and your legal team.
This paper is the regulators cocking the gun. You don’t want the barrel pointing at you.
Ethics in Design course: edition 2
Announcing new dates for Ethics in Design, a three-week online course that Ariel Guersenzvaig and I ran with Service Design College earlier this year. Cohort two will begin 23 October. Over four 90-minute live sessions, we’ll explore:
why and how ethical issues permeate every design and technology decision;
how to transform moral hunches into more grounded, robust ways to think about ethics;
methods for kick-starting ethical conversations inside your organisation;
how to overcome common objections to ethical discussion;
how to navigate conflicts between your personal and professional spheres;
areas of emerging focus in responsible design.
The course costs $295, and it’s suited to anyone in a design-related role, including product, UX, and UI designers, DesignOps folks, researchers, and managers.. Hope to see you there.
Fulbright Visiting Scholar 2024
Many of you know this already, but at last I’m formally allowed to announce that I’ve been awarded a Fulbright scholarship and will spend the first half of 2024 as a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Elon University, North Carolina.
It’s one of the most prestigious scholarships in the world, with a rigorous selection process, so I’m delighted to be one of the lucky recipients.
I’ll be researching anticipatory ethics – think ways to foresee & evaluate potential harms of emerging tech – and teaching a postgraduate module on ethics in interactive media. I also expect to visit other US institutions across academia and industry to give guest lectures and help advance discussion of this important topic. Please drop me a line if you might be able to host me for a visit.
Since the Fulbright programme is also focused on cultural exchange, I’ll also be going all-in on college sports fandom, BBQ wars, community pop-up chess nights, making Welsh cakes for confused Americans, etc.
I’m excited about this chance to participate in a scholarship programme that delivers real impact, advancing human knowledge and tackling global challenges, and I’ll be sharing more about my experience as I go.
Do the benefits of AI outweigh the risks?
I was kindly invited to a Raspberry Pi Foundation offsite to debate ‘Do the benefits of AI outweigh the risks?’ Here’s the short statement I shared:
Sometimes the role of an ethicist is to ask distinguishing questions. One such question is ‘for whom?’. Do the benefits of AI outweigh the risks? Well, the benefits for whom? The risks to whom? These two questions will probably have very different answers, right? The benefits and burdens of AI, as with almost every other innovation, won’t fall equally.
Technologies are always imprinted with values. This goes for even the crudest objects, things we don’t even think of as technologies. Think of razor wire. Razor wire is a shockingly opinionated object: it argues that someone’s right to private property is so important that we should injure anyone who violates that right.
AI people love talking about the value alignment problem: the idea that if we create a superintelligence we’d better make sure it holds the same things dear that we do, otherwise it might destroy them. But what happens before that? What values can we see imprinted within the AI systems we’re building today? When I look at modern AI, I see plausibility trumping truth. I see speed galloping ahead of safety. I see disruption hailed as inevitable, as destiny. Now, these may not be intentional design decisions but nevertheless, they have real-world impact. And the choice not to engage with the values and ethics of our technology is itself an ethical choice: an affirmation of the status quo, a vote to stay on our current heading.
AI could well be the largest force multiplier we’ve ever made. But we already feel society’s invisible, systemic forces acutely. Some people are elevated and empowered by these forces. Some are crushed. If we keep fostering the same values in technology that we do today, then I think these injustices will only increase. People who lack power today will end up further robbed of their autonomy and dignity. Entire creative classes may also find themselves dragged down by the technological undercurrents. It’s not hard to imagine a world in which the tech giants collect handsome royalties for their AI’s creations, while painters and novelists have to collect the recycling.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. Technology doesn’t hold the reins. We do. If we can subvert the default values of today’s tech sector and instead build AIs that prioritise compassion, justice, respect then yes, I think the benefits of AI will far outweigh the risks. How we achieve this within the confines of growth and profit is perhaps another question.
Image by Alan Warburton / © BBC / Better Images of AI / Plant / CC-BY 4.0
Artificial intelligence: who owns the future?
New piece out today on ethical.net, opening a short series on AI ethics: ‘AI: who owns the future?’
New public course: ‘Ethics in Design’
I’ve spent a lot of time training teams in responsible and ethical innovation, but it’s always been a solo endeavour. So I’m happy to announce something new. I’m partnering with Ariel Guersenzvaig on a new online, public course called Ethics in Design.
The course is split over three weeks, featuring four 90-minute discussion-led sessions. Between sessions you’ll reflect on what we covered, apply it in your work, and read a few short pieces about the ideas we’ll review next. So while we’re not offering the in-depth theory of an academic course, it’ll be a more considered, reflective environment than a typical one-day workshop.
My co-instructor Ariel is a professor of design at Elisava, and author of The Goods of Design, one of the few ethics books I recommend to switched-on practitioners. Ariel has a extensive teaching and academic experience but also has a superb design and UX background himself.
So we’re aiming for the best of both worlds, discussing important real-world design and tech issues while backing up the learning with deep expertise and academic pedigree. We’re also hoping our differing perspectives as instructors will highlight the complexities of ethical design, so you can weigh up and come to your own conclusions.
Here’s a snippet from the description.
‘In this 3-week training, you will learn how to turn your best intentions into grounded, robust methods for acting more ethically and responsibly. Two experienced instructors will guide you beyond moral hunches towards a more profound understanding of ethical design.’
Hosted by the folks at Service Design College, this will be suitable for anyone in a design-related role, including product, UX, and UI designers, DesignOps folks, researchers, and managers.
The course starts on Tue 23 May and sign-ups are open now, starting at $295. It’s probably the only public training I’ll be running for a while, so grab a ticket while you can.
Privacy in the product design lifecycle
In the whirlwind that was the last fortnight, I never properly shared the big project I shipped at the ICO. Designers, PMs, and engineers: this is for you.
Under GDPR (article 25), a data controller has to consider privacy through their entire product development process – this is called Data Protection by Design and Default. Through kickoff, research, design, development, and launch, you need to be able to prove you’ve done this work. You can’t ignore it and leave your legal or privacy team to make excuses later; companies are now being fined heavily for failing to live up to this requirement. (€265 million in Meta’s case, for example.)
The ICO only wants to fine companies as a last resort. It’s better for everyone if companies comply with the law properly.
So, in collaboration with a ton of ICO colleagues, I wrote and published guidance on Privacy in the product design lifecycle. It’s written directly for designers, PMs, and engineers, stepping through each stage of product development and clarifying what you must, should, and could do at each stage to protect users and help you comply with GDPR. There’s also info about the case for privacy, so you can convince your teammates this isn’t just about legal compliance, but building trust and keeping people and societies safe.
I might share more about writing regulatory guidance later on: it’s rather more complex than you might expect. But if you’re building products and services that handle personal data, I strongly recommend you check the guidance out: Privacy in the product design lifecycle.
Back into self-employment
Yesterday I wrapped up my time at the ICO. There’ll be time later for proper reflection on the experience, but first: I’m heading back into private consulting and starting to book work in for spring and summer.
You know my angles by now: responsible design and innovation, technology ethics, anticipating potential harms of our work. I’m obviously pretty strong on privacy design too.
I’m open to training, talks (in-house and conference), consulting, and some hands-on product design as schedule permits. My profile’s up-to-date with my recent work and topics of interest. As we all know, it’s not a wildly fertile environment for niche solo consultants right now, so I’d welcome leads and shares alike. Thanks!
Announcing ‘Privacy, Seriously’
Delighted to finally announce ‘Privacy, Seriously’, a free ICO mini-conference for product designers and PMs. It’s on 23 February, running 2–6pm (UK), online. Here’s the blurb:
‘In a changing technology landscape, privacy isn't just about legal compliance: it's about living up to your values through every feature and interaction. Get it right and privacy becomes a powerful differentiator, helping you forge trusted, respectful customer relationships that last for life.
Join us on 23 February for ‘Privacy, Seriously’, part of the ICO’s ongoing series of events for designers and product managers. At this free, online mini-conference, design and product leaders will reveal how they put privacy at the heart of responsible innovation. You’ll learn from the experts and organisations at the cutting edge of technology and regulation, and maybe even catch a glimpse of where the tech sector goes next.’
We’ve got keynotes from Robin Berjon and Eva PenzeyMoog, plus panels on real-world privacy design and deceptive designs. Also, an announcement or two from the ICO. More on those soon. It’s been a fair bit of work, so please share widely and recklessly, and don’t forget to sign up yourselves. See you there!
Details and sign-up link.
Book review: Deliberate Intervention
I call them ‘the outflankers’.
For perhaps seven years now, I’ve argued for tech teams to prioritise ethics. But there are always some who insist I’m wasting my time: that companies will never change their capitalist spots, that exploitation is in the sector’s genes. What we need, the outflankers argue, is structural change. Regulation. Oversight. Policy.
Which, yes, sure. I harbour my suspicions that some outflankers are more interested in being seen to have seen further than in offering genuine advice, but I can’t disagree with their premise. Of course we need to pull those broader levers, even though I see it as a ‘yes and’. I still work with tech teams since I know how they think and behave, and I can use that knowledge to help teams act more responsibly.
I can’t deny, though, that product/UX designers are painfully ignorant about policy and regulation. I’ve always found these concepts obscure and abstract myself: I didn’t understand how policy works, how it gets formed, or how industry should parse it. Candidly, one reason I joined the ICO was to cover this hole in my knowledge. But designers who don’t want to make that drastic a leap are now in luck, thanks to Alexandra Schmidt’s new book Deliberate Intervention, an excellent introduction to the colliding design and policy worlds.
Deliberate Intervention begins by discussing what readers can do if, like the author, they suspect something’s not right in the world of technology design. The sections on anticipating harms are among the best I’ve read in a practitioner book, starting with historical examples from toy safety to seat belts, then turning to ways of spotting emergent harms (a particular focus of mine these days). Schmidt then turns to deceptive design patterns, elegantly classing them as an intentional subset of these harms.
From there, the book’s horizons expand further. Schmidt argues that even the contrasting communities of industry and civil society approach innovation in remarkably similar ways: define, design, implement, evaluate, repeat. The comparison doesn’t always hold, though. Product design and policy horizons are wildly out-of-sync – six months vs. a decade or more – and their value systems are different or even directly opposed: capitalist profit for private-sector UXers vs. public good for policy specialists. But Schmidt is optimistic about the possibilities for better integration, arguing that persistence and creativity can help bridge the gap between corporate ethics, regulatory oversight, and social good.
As I read the book, I was reminded of perhaps my favourite quote about design:
“Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context – a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan.”
Maybe policy and governance are the larger contexts for UX and product design: if so, we owe them our attention. Deliberate Intervention, then, is a grown-up, skilfully written book that our industry might just be ready for.
Demystifying regulation and policy isn’t just useful for the outflankers. It’s important for anyone who wants technology’s power to be applied responsibly as its scope increases. So I think Deliberate Intervention is a useful read for senior practitioners, particularly strategic designers. In fact, it’s probably helpful for anyone designing in a regulated industry, or one that’s about to be. In other words, pretty much everyone.
Ethics note: I bought this book through my own company budget. Deliberate Intervention references my own work on occasion; I didn’t know this in advance. I consider Lou Rosenfeld, owner of the publisher Two Waves, a friend but this review is freely given and has not been solicited. There are no affiliate links on this post.
From unintended to unconsidered
WIRED’s post on tech’s unintended consequences suggests a neat rebranding: call them unconsidered consequences instead. It’s a fair point. Most tech companies haven’t even tried to anticipate possible social and ethical impacts of their work.
The usual defence is you can’t imagine impact at scale. But there’s a puzzling contradiction here. Teams seem entirely happy to imagine scale impacts on technical issues like server load, but when humanity enters the picture, there’s a collective shrug, an alarming unwillingness to consider what might happen next, whom might it benefit, and whom it might harm.
WIRED quotes Aza Raskin heavily, retreading the contrite techie narrative told by The Social Dilemma. I don’t think this is a great look: taking this stance undermines the piece’s arguments by suggesting we should let techies off the hook for failing to anticipate harms. But it’s a story the media loves, so for now we’re stuck with it.
Anyway, Raskin suggests three solutions to the hell he hath wrought. The first two – Hippocratic Oath-type clauses in open-source licenses, and progressive regulation that scales with adoption – have some merits. But his third is the most important: companies should simply try to anticipate harms.
Raskin suggests red teams isolated from typical product and leadership processes. It’s worth discussing whether these work best outside or inside product teams (both make some sense), but the idea is solid and entirely doable. True, the skills may be unfamiliar, but there are already disciplines that excel at drawing upon signals and trends to depict future states. Tech teams can and should learn from them, and can and must anticipate the harm they could do before it happens. Even better, they should use these skills to hear from vulnerable groups, since we are always hampered by our own perspectives.
This sort of anticipatory ethics is underexplored in tech and philosophy, but I’m sure it can help make tech safer and more beneficial. Expect more from me on anticipation in the future, particularly if certain academic plans come to fruition. For starters, my workshop What Could Go Wrong? is about precisely this idea: teams can learn practical anticipation tools and do this work themselves.
It’s true that when you try to anticipate future harms, you won’t spot them all. But as the muscle gets stronger, your success rate improves and you develop better foresight senses. But even spotting some harms is preferable to not looking in the first place.
A three-line WIP
Torn about this article: Welcome to the WIP. One on hand, it codifies some longstanding truths: our linear design narratives are fictions; regular crit makes better products, etc. So far, so solid. But as I read it, I liked its vibes less and less. I think there are two reasons.
1. The piece was written by the Figma CPO Yuhki Yamashita, and published on the Figma blog. The thrust is that Figma is highlighting emerging design trends, and supporting them through its product choices. But I question the direction of travel. Figma’s market dominance arguably means it gets to establish design trends. Figma has always prioritised showing WIP / cross-functional design collaboration / people poking their damn noses into incomplete work they lack the expertise to properly evaluate (delete as appropriate): this piece doesn’t interrogate the company’s role – and the role of tooling more generally – in shaping industry practice. Figma isn’t paving the cowpaths: it’s bulldozing the construction site.
2 – and this is where I indulge some industry-elder-type grumbling – these trends, whether emergent or engineered, contribute to the ongoing commoditisation and devaluation of design skill (pioneered by our uncritical embracing of design systems), and to a forced ideological commitment to incrementalism, faux empiricism, and to launching mediocre products.
‘And yes, this means some imperfect launches. But customers aren’t judging our products based on that singular moment’ says Yamashita. Perhaps so for Figma, but elsewhere, customers absolutely do judge products on singular moments. With a thousand competitors, a botched launch means an instant install-and-delete, and customers lost to you forever.
There’s certainly a place for scrappiness in design, and a WIP-iterative way of working. But, whatever empirical dogmatists might have you believe, there’s also a role for polish and finesse, even before launch. Advanced design expertise involves matching the approach to the scenario. I’m not sure Figma understands or welcomes that fluidity.
The ethics of watching Qatar 2022
The World Cup shouldn’t be in Qatar. We all know why not: the human rights abuses, the suffering of workers, the FIFA corruption, the oppression of LGBTQ+ people… by now, it’s well-trodden ground. But should you watch the tournament on TV? Ethically, I think it’s ok. Here’s why.
First, the arguments against watching. These mostly concern the effect on aggregate viewing figures. Large TV audiences for Qatar 2022 will:
embolden FIFA to discount human rights when considering future bids;
successfully launder Qatar’s reputation, their main aim in hosting;
lead to profit for advertisers and sponsors.
This suggests there’s a case for opting out. But does individual action really make a difference? This question comes up a lot in climate ethics. There, I believe the answer is yes, but only for heavy emitters. An American who flies frequently for business could (and probably should) eliminate perhaps 20 tons of CO₂e by reducing this travel. A Lesothan farmer’s annual impact is nowhere near this, so he or she essentially has no footprint to reduce. The moral onus is almost entirely on the rich to change their harmful behaviours.
The other big impact of individual action is the social signal. By stopping needless flying, say, you send an ethical message – maybe we shouldn’t do this any more – that can encourage others to do the same. In climate action this is powerful: heavy emitters’ friends and peers are typically heavy emitters too, meaning this signal can have large collective effects if it changes others’ behaviours.
Watching the World Cup is different. The differences between individuals are negligible, which makes the case for individual action weaker. Other than the minor difference in value to advertisers, one fewer viewer is just one fewer viewer: there will still be 3.5bn people watching the final, whether you’re in that number or not. Same goes for the social signal. You may convince a few others to join your boycott, but there’s no opportunity for outsized impact as there is with climate. If you choose not to watch, the consequences will be very minor.
Now, the arguments for watching. The strongest is the most obvious: you enjoy it. Don’t underestimate how important that is. Pleasure is central to almost any ethical definition of well-being; some ethicists even say it’s the only thing that’s good for you, although these days that’s a minority view.
The other big benefit is cultural. For all the World Cup’s flaws, I think there is still something meaningful and culturally valuable about bringing the world together in competition. It’s a chance to learn more about other countries and cultures, even if it’s just whether they employ a high press or a low block. It’s a chance to explore shared loves amid our differences. Admittedly I’m flirting with misty-eyed idealism here, but in our era of isolation and nationalism, a world uniting around a simple game is surely a good thing.
Of course, it’s your decision. You may say it’s the principle of the thing that matters, and you feel an obligation to boycott. Or perhaps you feel the climate impact of such a massive tournament is indefensible. And sure, if those arguments weigh heavily on you, I won’t tell you you’re wrong. I've ignored that perspective on ethics in favour of examining the consequences of the decision. I do think, however, a TV boycott certainly isn’t ethically required, and is probably being too hard on yourself.
Ethics shouldn’t be an act of self-flagellation. We should all stop doing really harmful things, of course, but moral perfection is asking too much. In practice, being an ethical person is about trying to live a bit better each day, making progress toward the values and aspirations you have of your future self.
The World Cup shouldn’t be in Qatar. We should recognise and speak out against the suffering it has caused. We should discuss the awful LGBTQ+ stance of the hosts, while recognising that British football has deep problems with homophobia too. But if you enjoy the World Cup and want to support your team at home, I think it’s ok to watch Qatar 2022.
Twitter and the void beyond
Some thoughts on Twitter. Perhaps I’ve not much to add beyond what others have said, but I want to say it anyway. (This was, after all, the point of Twitter.)
Twitter has been the most significant digital space of my life. I met my wife there. I met my community there. I made lifelong friends and a few mediocre enemies. I loved it so much I worked there. It was a mixed bag: pockets of excellent people stunted by woeful morale and exhausting leadership flux. The IPO was, I think, the reward these workers deserved for making Twitter a success despite everything.
And now, it belongs to one of the worst owners I could think of.
Everything we say on Twitter is now raw material for the world’s richest man to squeeze profit from. Every tweet is validation for his free-speech absolutism and teenage trolling, a vote for the weird-nerd Muskian cult.
I’m not going to leave entirely: there’s too much emotional geography there. Those walls hold memories. But I certainly won’t be around as much. I don’t think I’m going to Mastodon: from here, it looks like a nightmare. I will have to be on LinkedIn more, because I have a niche consulting business to run amid a grinding recession, and capitalism forces us to constantly pursue our own debasement.
Beyond that, I expect I’ll be screaming into the void on this here website, and hoping others see it somehow. We’ve always needed better indie-web connective infrastructure (readers solved only a marginal use-case); that need just became more urgent.
More than anything, though, I’ll just be elsewhere. I need to excise the social media brainworms, to unlearn the habit of thinking in short-form and seeking validation from numbers in blue dots. I hope to bump into you on those muddier roads.
Working for the ICO
Summer 2022 ground me into a fine paste and spread me thinly over some dry, tasteless psychological crackers, meaning I forgot to mention I started a new job. I’m now Principal Technology Adviser at the ICO, the UK’s privacy regulator, specialising in product design. The plan is to help the UK design community do better on privacy. Some promising stuff in the pipeline: watch this space.
It’s a part-time role, so I can still balance my academic duties and some light freelancing, assuming no conflicts of interest. At times it’s been a whiplash-inducing, Verdana-drenched challenge, but I’m starting to find my rhythm now, and hell: if you want impact on an entire sector, regulators offer huge opportunities. Hopefully I can make the most of them.
Echoing some home truths
Alexa’s got more pushy of late. Seems like almost every query invites some hostile FYI upsell: ‘by the way…’, ‘did you know…’. Presumably some Seattle product manager is on the hook for steep usage targets and is having to deal with the insurmountable issue that voice UIs are notoriously undiscoverable.
So… has anyone else taken to swearing at it as way to influence the algorithm? I’m positive a company like Amazon is listening for abusive replies and coding them as strong negative feedback signals. (If they’re not, they’re really missing a trick.)
I’m generally sentimental about the prospect of treating machine partners well, at least in years to come (see Future Ethics, ch8 – I’m also writing an essay that’s warm on robot moral patiency for my AI Ethics module). But I don’t see we have any other forms of recourse or protest, other than throwing the things into a river.
My point, I guess: it might be okay to tell Alexa to fuck off, you know.
New workshop: What Could Go Wrong?
Want to design more responsible, ethical products? If so, you need to understand how your decisions might harm others.
I’m writing a new workshop, What Could Go Wrong?, which critics have labelled ‘wow, a really good title for a workshop’. It’ll introduce anticipatory techniques from strategic foresight, practical ethics, and even science fiction to explore the unintended consequences of design. Attendees will learn new ways to anticipate ethical risks so they can stop them before they happen.
It’ll debut at UX London on 28 June. Grab a ticket: https://2022.uxlondon.com/schedule/day-one/
The ethical risks of emotional mimicry
When might a robot or AI deserve ‘moral status’? In other words, how sophisticated would an AI have to get to, say, claim rights, or for us to have a moral duty to treat it well? Sci-fi writers love this question, of course, and it’s an ongoing research topic in AI ethics.
One view: we should base this decision on behaviour. If an AI acts like other beings – i.e. humans or animals – that already have moral status, maybe the AI deserves moral status too. So, does it (seem to) dislike and avoid pain? Does it (appear to) have preferences and intentions? Does it (pretend to) display emotions? Things like that might count.
I think some engineers and designers bristle at this idea. After all, we know mimicking this sort of thing isn’t theoretically too tough: we can imagine how we’d make a robot that seemed to flinch from pain, that lip-wobbled on demand, etc.
Nevertheless, this theory, known as ethical behaviourism, is still one some philosophers take seriously. In part that’s because, well… what other useful answers are there? We can’t see into other people’s minds, so can’t really know if they feel or suffer. And we can’t rely on physiology and biomechanics: it’s all silicon here, not nerves and brains. So what other options do we have, apart from observed behaviour?
And imagine if we ever got it wrong. If we made an AI that could suffer, without realising it – a false negative – we’d end up doing some awful things. So it seems reasonable to err on the side of caution.
Back to design. Designers love emotions. We try to engender them in humans (delight!), we talk about them ad nauseam (empathy!), and so we’re naturally tempted to employ them in our products and services. But I think emotional mimicry in tech – along with other forms of anthropomorphism – is risky, even dangerous. First, tech that fakes emotion can manipulate humans more effectively, meaning deceptive designs become even more powerful.
Second, the idea of ethical behaviourism suggests that at some future point we might become so good at mimicry that we face all sorts of unintended moral and even legal consequences. A dystopia in which the Duolingo owl is so unhappy you skipped your vocab test that you could be prosecuted for cruelty. A chatbot so real we’re legitimately forced to worry whether it’s lonely. Is it even ethical to create something that can suffer? Have we, in effect, just spawned a million unwanted puppies?
Design is complicated enough already: I don’t think we want to sign up for that world in a hurry. I’d rather keep emotion out of it.