The Ethical Implications of Mind-Machine Meld | Future You | NPR
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- The fast-moving development of brain-machine interfaces got a boost when Elon Musk announced the work for Neuralink, his new company devoted to implantable devices to enhance cognition and better marry our brains with super-computing. His competitor, fellow tech entrepreneur Bryan Johnson of Kernel, weighs in on why he thinks advancing cognition can solve all the other problems in the world. But tech ethicist Tristan Harris says not so fast -- we haven’t properly accounted for what existing tech has already done to us. Think things through with this brainy episode of Future You with Elise Hu.
------------------------------------------------------
Follow NPR elsewhere, too:
• Twitter: / npr
• Facebook: / npr
• Instagram: / npr
• Tumblr: / npr
• Snapchat: / npr
ABOUT NPR
NPR connects to audiences on the air, on demand, online, and in person. More than 26 million radio listeners tune in to NPR stations each week and more than 36 million unique visitors access NPR.org each month making NPR one of the most trusted sources of news and insights on life and the arts. NPR is also the leading publisher of podcasts, with 36 original shows and an average of 4 million listeners per week. NPR shares compelling stories, audio and photos with millions of social media users on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, RUclips and Snapchat; NPR News and NPR One apps, online streaming, podcasts, iTunes radio and connected car dashboards help meet audiences where they are. NPR's live events bring to the stage two-way conversations between NPR hosts and the audience in collaboration with the public radio Member Station community. This robust access to public service journalism makes NPR an indispensable resource in the media landscape.
This just seems like it would exacerbate inequality, bombard us with ads, and record everything we do (which could be used for ideological observation). I would NOT want this to become a thing.
The “blue screen of death” has a new connotation.
No, no! Not Windows 10!
Put me in a nice distro of Linux. Mint has a nice feel to it.
Excellent job NPR
Good story on a complicated, disturbing subject.
I just hope it doesn’t end up like M.T. Anderson’s “Feed”. Targeted advertising to your brain, increases in inequality between the rich and the poor, and an overall disconnection for nature.
It’s humanity. If it can, it will.
This will cure my epilepsy. I just want to be normal...
Risk of pandemics they say that didn’t age well
US defense research has been working on man machine interface for several decades....
I just wanna use my brain to turn on and operate my devices hands free
I'll pass on the "connectivity" aspect of it, but I'll take all the RAM they can stuff into my skull. No more forgetting birthdays, appointments or where I left my keys! ...And somebody please make a calculator program! ...And Kung Fu! I wanna D/L Kung Fu straight into my brain!
Creating artificial love through a brain machine will reduce the authenticity of love and connection, therefore it is harmful to relationships. Augmenting emotions like empathy and love is just like augmenting intelligence in that both allow someone to attain things that are supposed to be difficult to get, rendering what is unusual and praise-worthy like intelligence and love to something menial and easily attainable.
Elon Musk for President!!!!
I agree with Tristan, and I'd like to add that this brain augmentation is very half-brained in that it's very logical and not connecting to the emotional half of our brain. Our human brain evolved to work both logically and emotionally, and so if the tech is only going to augment the logical side, then there are going to be a lot of problems.
Anxiety! For the future
The dude Elon already thinks that we are in a computer. He is trying to make computer-seption.
We're creating the Borg!
It becomes an issue when the technology is tested on non consensual citizens. Currently, #TargetedIndividuals
are affected by this technology.
didn't want expertise possibility. Hard wearing of 'devices implant' isn't needed.
Emagine getting hacked
The ethical implication is that you won't die. Since immortalism tech is still a big taboo the mind-machine interfacing is also a very good way to get that first foot in the door. It appears that all such tech must be popularized first and for people in general to have some rudimentary knowledge about it in much the same way as presidents get elected in democracies.
I disagree with Tristan Harris because being careful also means loosing time to being careful and therefore delaying on technology and or not increasing the scientific knowledge to achieve physical immortality as quickly as possible for all human beings (and then other animals etc).
I mean if you wan't to talk about ethics then the foundation of physical immortalism as say an ideology must be present (in laws/constitutions etc) and from that platform you can talk about "being careful" because putting chips into brains might mess up our minds/selves too much. Humanity suffers from a foundational problem first and foremost and since obviously there is no foundation to speak of (a rational logical one) we keep plugging in fun little problem holes and masturbate our selves to oblivion...philosophically speaking. If one want's to talk about "ethics" seriously then the foundation has to be in place. Now of course you will get people opposing this and calling this a creation of a giant cult for the whole world or some such...except that who you gonna call (ghost buster reference) when you get sick? I thought so. Leave the mind over matter and spirituality things AFTER physical immortality had been achieved and is rock solid guaranteed to everyone free of f-ing charge.
Oh and I forgot to add. Once we figure out how our brains work (and this would obviously * hint * require a-lot-of-time...sigh why do I even try...) and therefore how our minds work then it is either VR worlds time or the much more dangerous external space exploration thing where you unnecessarily bring your brain and body on a space ship to explore space and foreign planets.
I'd like to see concise answers to three questions. First, why do you think immortalism is possible? Second, what would immortalism be like for beings who started out as biological beings? And finally, why do you think immortalism would be a desirable future?
As a university-trained professional futurist, I heartily agree with Harris that we need to be careful about these technologies. We hear a lot of hype from the inventors and entrepreneurs promoting these technologies, but we see few well-reasoned arguments about why individuals might adopt them. We see even fewer arguments about what the potential undesirable, unanticipated, and unintended consequences of these technologies are or might be. We hear even less about the unrecognized consequences of developments going on in our midst of which we're generally unaware. Yet those "invisible un-s" present the possibility of creating futures with even more massive inequalities and injustices than exist today.
I'm 63 years old this year, and given my family history, I've probably got 20 to maybe 25 years left on this world. I have no children. My stake in these technologies is minimal. But I can imagine times in which unaugmented humans may be treated as beasts to be exploited. If you're one of the augmented ones, that might not be bad -- although there are a lot of reasons to believe you'd be even more exploited than unaugmented humans. But, if for lack of money, incompatibility with the hardware or software,or just plain mistrust of the tech (I wouldn't want to boot up my new chip set to encounter The Blue Screen of Death), you're not one of the augmented bunch, life could be bad.
Are those futures you want for your children? Just remember this: one person's utopia is another's dystopia. Don't discount the dissident voices: explore what they have to say and ask why inventors and entrepreneurs are hyping these technologies. Here's a hint: it's not for your benefit.
@@ghujdvbts But where is your leg to stand on? If you are not an immortalist that's like putting a sticker on yourself that says: "I'm here to sacrifice myself for things, others or oneself." Immortalists by that very self given definition have a stake in this..so called game of life.
There is also a spiritual (metaphysical) side to this. Both magic and technology (even at the same time I suppose some sort of hybrid thing) can be used to for instance get to the moon. Now of course I cannot provide evidence for the supernatural (actually I wouldn't even wan't to be in possession of such a tangible type of evidence and start waving my arms around "look! evidence!"). I know it...I have to deal with it. The closest thing I can come up as an example would be the simulation theory about the nature of reality.
But anyhow immortality is something simple and it's not birthed out of some intensive philosophical discourse.
Point number 2 is that it is something neutral and constructive. Our neocortex want's to do that type of thing. Now the problem here is that that's not enough. Mathematicians, philosophers, spiritual types (ie. religion) etc that makes use of their neocortex get drowned out by their own machinations the same noises and lights.
There has to be a foundation beneath all that not just for instance to create an immoralist church or political party just so as to have a voice that states the f-ing obvious. It has to be something like water or air all pervasive and inevitable after all death is a human condition that effects all of us.
ghujdvbts: your neural states and plugging them into me wouldn't make me you.
There are types of (theoretical) mind uploading. For instance some believe that copying the organic brain constituents grant's "you" digital immortality. Or first you would have to clone a husk (clean slate tabula rasa) brain then do the digital transfer thing(?). Or perhaps 'analog' computation and computers would be the key to all this. My personal take is to keep the brain alive as long as possible in a container and feed it digital information (digital virtual world) so that way acquire "a bridge to immortality." And from thereon slowly merge (replace) the bio neurons of the brain into artificial neurons as technology and understanding of our own brain would eventually progress to that point.
Also, i'd encourage you to read about our medical history. There's a quite vast fundamental discussion on ethics and medicine.
With money or without? Docs, medicine, researching for new cures to things that kills us all cost money. And when it comes to money you definitely need to compartmentalize and leave such areas for people that are good at it. Or we could just move back to hunter gatherer lifestyles and give our neocortex a break.
The most vulnerable part of cyber security is between the chair and the keyboard.
This tech is necessary for humans to compete in a post singularity reality.
This technology is necessary to achieve singularity. We are the circuits of the thinking machines.
Calvin McClory: "We are the circuits of the thinking machines."
I think that there are enough particles in the universe for such benevolent A.I. Gods to leave us (sentient hardware based cyber-brains-minds) alone in our fantasy utopia world simulations. Fantasy and reality will be indistinguishable. Heaven and Earth merged if you are religiously eschatological-y inclined.
Scary
Who would want to give it to a 🦈?
David Heller Professor Farnsworth ... no wait, that was Hitler’s brain.
Jen G What you mean?
David Heller It’s an episode of Futurama.
ruclips.net/video/F1wJd3nZ4jI/видео.html
Is faith a reliable pathway to truth claims about the world?
certainly! most of the world religions make objective truth claims about the world. for example, love is better than to hate. however, there are certain claims that are contradictory: such as Jesus died on the cross as Christians posit and Jesus did not die on the cross as Muslims posit. One cannot be true and both claims have eternal implications (based on the doctrinal beliefs of each faith). I guess you can argue that even the statement "love is better than hate" is subjective but I would then ask you if you believe in objective truths at all.
Elli Yu So how is that so if all religions use their scriptures as faith?
@@HardKore5250 im sorry, how is what so? i dont think I understand your question.
Elli Yu How reliable is faith if believers use their scriptures from different religions?
@@HardKore5250 In my opinion, it is reliable if they invoke objective truths. It's not reliable if they make truth claims that are not supported by empirical evidence from the human and natural sciences, etc. I know Christianity is true not only because of the abundance of scientific, historical, and archaeological evidence but also because I have encountered the Living God through prayer and reading the Bible. He has revealed to me His love and truth through His Holy Spirit.
This guy is wrong
L I Religious people are scared of change. Who cares lol
That avatar is wrong but yes I agree, Scientism is evil
andy panda What is scientism?
In laymen terms...It's the belief that all answers can be found through the scientific method.
andy panda Do you think that is more reliable than faith in scriptures?
its very bad.
No, No, No,