SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the superhero-cyborgs-need-a-special-suit,-too dept.
Why I'm turning my son into a cyborg (archive) (alt)
Imagine if everyone spoke a language you don't understand. People have been speaking it around you since the day you were born, but while everyone else picks it up immediately, for you it means nothing. Others become frustrated with you. Friendships and jobs are difficult. Just being "normal" becomes a battle.
For many with autism, this is the language of emotion. For those on the spectrum, fluency in facial expressions doesn't come for free as it does for "neurotypicals." To them, reading facial expressions seems like a superpower.
So when my son was diagnosed, I reacted not just as a mom. I reacted as a mad scientist and built him a superpower.
This isn't the first time I've played mad scientist with my son's biology. When he was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, I hacked his insulin pump and built an AI that learned to match his insulin to his emotions and activities. I've also explored neurotechnologies to augment human sight, hearing, memory, creativity, and emotions. Tiger moms might obsess over the "right" prep schools and extracurriculars for their child, but I say why leave their intellect up to chance?
I've chosen to turn my son into a cyborg and change the definition of what it means to be human. But do my son's engineered superpowers make him more human, or less?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fadrian on Friday July 19 2019, @01:35PM (13 children)
But do my son's engineered superpowers make him more human, or less?
It has nothing to do with humanity, but it does make him more complex and dependent on technology only the author knows. I don't know what that will do with the kid's chance of survival, but I think hacking your kid is a bit of a bad idea, unless you make sure that others have documentation.
That is all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday July 19 2019, @03:27PM (11 children)
Hacking your kid is also a stupid idea unless you are qualified to do so. It places an undue level of faith in her judgment of making changes to code that could kill her son. Of the many reasons that medical stuff is expensive are notions of testing and an awareness that great harm can result from a coding screwup causing a greater than normal level of diligence. If someone could enlighten me about her qualifications to be messing with that (I've "reached my limit of free articles" and damned if I'll register to RTFA right now) I'd be very interested.
Right now it has the flavor to me of, "I'm a pilot, so of course I can make the changes to my plane's 737-Max software on the fly to get me better economy and get it in the air again!"
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 19 2019, @03:46PM
I understand there's a portion of the open source movement set to do this, and the things the process does are automate a portion of the calculation and data entry, plus add logging that's not normally accessible. More like "Because I'm a pilot, I can set a better 3d gps course than altitude/heading hold including logging fuel usage. Because I'm trained as a navigator, I can create a position log that GPS isn't actually tracking" than "get me better economy and get it in the air again!".
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday July 19 2019, @04:17PM (3 children)
I am a pilot and off course I have a right to modify my experimental airplane any way I am pleased. Passenger's lives? I have a required place-card displayed warning them.
What you imply should affect only commercial use and only a large one at that.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday July 19 2019, @07:21PM (2 children)
Gee, your experimental airplane is a 737-Max? Maybe there was a reason I used that specific example?
But since you opened the door..... Sure. You can modify your experimental plane. It's experimental. Right up to the moment you obtain your type II special airworthiness certificate and where your modifications touch upon what would be constituted as a major change. Then you have to amend your Special Airworthiness Certificate and re-flight test your aircraft, no? Put another way, unless your certificate is different from the norm, you hack up your plane and then crash it and the FAA determines it was your hacking that caused the accident then you can pretty well expect it will have been retroactively determined to have been a major change and you should have amended. So you'd better not make any modification that can result in a death without amending your certificate, right?
No, it doesn't just apply to commercial use. You are not allowed to hack anything on a type-certified (non-special) aircraft unless you hold an A&P and are thus certified to do so, unless.... Want to hack your Cessna 172? Better apply for a experimental / special use certificates. Then you again have an experimental airplane.
By the way... why do they not allow you to fly over populated airspace during your Type I flight testing except for takeoffs and landings?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday July 19 2019, @11:54PM (1 child)
The reason you used 737 example was because you wanted to scary people who are not her kids. The bottom line, it is not your lawn; newer was, never will be.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Saturday July 20 2019, @02:20AM
No, the reason I used the 737 example was it was rather clear cut that there was someone who had an ethical obligation to take care of someone else (a pilot and passengers), which limits what freedoms the pilot can do. We don't even have to go into whether you should have an ethical or moral obligation to ensure your plane is safe for flight before taking others up in it, no matter how it is licensed or what your operating class is.
Same way with parents. You can point out the parents has the right to determine medical treatments for her kids and be correct. But the minute a parent starts acting like a physician or a regulated medical device manufacturer it IS the right of society to intervene. So it IS our lawn.
I'll just assume you're conceding that I'm right that your experimental plane isn't yours to do absolutely anything you choose to without having to have it reinspected / retested for safety if you intend to continue to fly it, and that you are aware that while you're testing it you can't fly it over concentrated population so that if you kill yourself the odds are it is only yourself you take down and not an innocent. Thanks.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 19 2019, @10:38PM (5 children)
She can code and she has an interest in not killing the kid. Out of curiosity who do you think has the qualifications to decide what qualifications are necessary for such activities?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Saturday July 20 2019, @02:22AM (4 children)
The FDA? [fda.gov]
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Saturday July 20 2019, @02:37AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 20 2019, @07:28PM (2 children)
Same old khallow, shitty arguments instead of acknowledging someone might have a point.
I feel like we just had a conversation about this
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 21 2019, @03:22AM
Accusing someone is not a conversation.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday July 23 2019, @03:17PM
Meh, I made my point, Khallow made Khallow's point.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snow on Friday July 19 2019, @04:19PM
AI sometimes does unpredictable things.... I sure wouldn't hook up my kid to an AI controlled insulin pump that I created. The chances that something will screw up and deliver a lethal dose is too high for me to stomach. Unless, maybe that is the ultimate plan. Have an AI accidentally kill her son so she doesn't get the blame?
Alpha testing with your kid's life. Seems pretty fucked up to me.