SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Changes in technology often produce ethical quandaries that did not previously exist. The successful transplantation of human hearts lead some to re-define death as "brain-death", so as to allow removal of organs for transplants. Now we may be faced with similar need for new definitions and limitations, as tech moves into neural interfaces. The article is to be found at Vox.
“Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull.” That’s from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. The comment is meant to highlight what a repressive surveillance state the characters live in, but looked at another way, it shows how lucky they are: At least their brains are still private.
Over the past few weeks, Facebook and Elon Musk’s Neuralink have announced that they’re building tech to read your mind — literally.
Mark Zuckerberg’s company is funding research on brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that can pick up thoughts directly from your neurons and translate them into words. The researchers say they’ve already built an algorithm that can decode words from brain activity in real time.
And Musk’s company has created flexible “threads” that can be implanted into a brain and could one day allow you to control your smartphone or computer with just your thoughts. Musk wants to start testing in humans by the end of next year.
Of course, with medical technology, one could always make the argument that the issue was saving humans lives. Somehow we do not suspect that Zuckerberg or Musk are contaminated by such motives.
Your brain, the final privacy frontier, may not be private much longer.
Some neuroethicists argue that the potential for misuse of these technologies is so great that we need revamped human rights laws — a new “jurisprudence of the mind” — to protect us. The technologies have the potential to interfere with rights that are so basic that we may not even think of them as rights, like our ability to determine where our selves end and machines begin. Our current laws are not equipped to address this.
It's an in-depth article; a few highlights:
One of the main people pushing for these new human rights is neuroethicist Marcello Ienca, a researcher at ETH Zurich, one of Europe’s top science and technology universities. In 2017, he released a paper outlining four specific rights for the neurotechnology age he believes we should enshrine in law. I reached out to ask what he thought of the recent revelations from Facebook and Neuralink.
The four rights are:
1. The right to cognitive liberty
You should have the right to freely decide you want to use a given neurotechnology or to refuse it.
. . .
2. The right to mental privacy
You should have the right to seclude your brain data or to publicly share it.
. . . .
3. The right to mental integrity
You should have the right not to be harmed physically or psychologically by neurotechnology.
. . .
4. The right to psychological continuity
You should have the right to be protected from alterations to your sense of self that you did not authorize.
Alright, I know what you are thinking; wait, no, I don't! Not really. Let's keep it that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:34AM (3 children)
Eh?
You're not getting it. He *can*, but he *doesn't*. Every plumber I know, every contractor, buys online, uses computers or their smart phone to save money. To do things faster. To get docs. And to all the things you ignored in my post you just replied to.
That makes them MORE profitable, MORE efficient, and gives them MORE free time.
Meaning? They're more competitive.
You are disadvantages without a computing device today. You keep ignoring this part, and say "But you don't have to!".
So what? Meaningless. That's not the point.
The tradesman can forego all electric tools too. Use a hand drill. A cart and horse. So?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:43PM (2 children)
Sucks to live in your place, then.
'Cause mine came to see what I want, called his mate at the depot by phone, got a discount that was passed half to me on the materials bill, went there and picked the heater, was back in 1 hour. I was glad to pay him extra for the work, 'cause he saved me half a sday and the entire evening waiting for the delivery.
Can't get more competitive than personalized service and less dependence on logistics ran from hundred of kilometers away.
Maybe. There are advantages too in being less reliant on an infrastructure than may or may not be accessible when you need it.
You know those farmers that initiated the right to repair movement some years ago? When you risk your crop of an entire year because a sensor is faulty and the service will come tomorrow, together with the forecaster rain... you might get the idea that the entire technology that made you so efficient in raising that crop is actually a huge liability when it stops you from harvesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:07PM (1 child)
You're missing context (likely on purpose, as you keep doing it), by ignoring the ends of sentences, and thread totality.
I didn't say "only buys online", I said "buys online to save". Save being the key component. I also mentioned tools, which are expensive things.. yet you ignored that, and talk about a water tank, the most difficult thing to single-ship.
A plumber needs things like plumber's tape, solder, propane/butane, and 100s of little things like copper pipe joins, PVC pipe joins, PVC cement, and on, and on, and on.
These are all things that are typically bought ahead of time, in bulk. Pricing online = better than in store.
Of course, you ignore all those possibilities, and just say 'meh', and say 'but I saw this guy buy something from a store!' and 'he *called* someone'.
I don't know why you persist in ignoring things like this, when repeatedly mentioned. You're not debating the point, simply ignoring it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:11AM
I thought I made it obvious that I paid extra to have the problem solved to my needs and fast. the
Immediateness consequence: there is a market for which considerations of 'saving a dime to waste a thousand' does not apply.
Could be do it by computer? I doubt that he maintains on Facebook his personal relation with the store owner where he bought the heater at discounted price and I really doubt that he could download the heater from the store to install it. His choice seems to be face 2 face, personal relations and doing a good job which includes the acquisition and delivery of the equipment. He seems to make a living good enough for himself, so I suspect the market segment he caters to is larger than only myself.
(bottom line: you can still make a profit if you chose not to save more but to earn more. Still works, especially outside the corporate environment.
Since the tools are mostly one of investment (at least within a year), I don't see how being connected with a neural Interface to the internet plays a role into it. Besides, I didn't see him using anything else but pliers, blowtorch, flux and tin, plumbers tape. Can't imagine those tools are that expensive or requires knowledge one needs to download from internet straight into the brain.
And obtaining all of these requires direct neural connection? Is that 'the survival factor for plumbers' as younseem to imply?
Mate, are you aware about the law of diminishing returns? Using a computer could have shaved probably $10 from his bill, in consumables. Like less than 1% of his total bill. Oh, wow, that's ... /s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford