NationStates

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Washingtonae wrote:I doubt many people will agree to this, but if they do, we are truly doomed as a species. The only thing more disturbing than technological trans-humanism is the amount of people that support it. AI and robotics are an existential threat to humanity, and people like Elon Musk are on course to just allow it to destroy us because it might make life a little easier.

Once again, yes. AI and robotics are a threat to humanity as we know it. But how can you be satisfied with humanity as it is?

I'm not satisfied with how some humans behave, but I'm satisfied with humans as an organism. This is the form nature intended for us, and completely getting rid of it for convenience is a violent perversion of nature that can't end well. History is not kind to those who play God.

Rusozak wrote:

Washingtonae wrote:I doubt many people will agree to this, but if they do, we are truly doomed as a species. The only thing more disturbing than technological trans-humanism is the amount of people that support it. AI and robotics are an existential threat to humanity, and people like Elon Musk are on course to just allow it to destroy us because it might make life a little easier.

I wouldn't call correcting horribly crippling disorders making life "a little easier." This is tremendous for medicine.

I probably should've explained the difference between technological and genetic trans-humanism. Curing disorders and deformities is not wrong, but being human is not a disability. Genetic modification has promise if we use it responsibly, because we can improve ourselves while still being human. I'm all for curing deformities, but most of the people who want to use this stuff just think getting rid of their body and becoming a machine will fix all their problems.

Washingtonae wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Once again, yes. AI and robotics are a threat to humanity as we know it. But how can you be satisfied with humanity as it is?

I'm not satisfied with how some humans behave, but I'm satisfied with humans as an organism. This is the form nature intended for us, and completely getting rid of it for convenience is a violent perversion of nature that can't end well. History is not kind to those who play God.

Edward Jenner, Louis Pasteur, Jonas Salk, all remembered by history as monsters.

Washingtonae wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Once again, yes. AI and robotics are a threat to humanity as we know it. But how can you be satisfied with humanity as it is?

I'm not satisfied with how some humans behave, but I'm satisfied with humans as an organism. This is the form nature intended for us, and completely getting rid of it for convenience is a violent perversion of nature that can't end well. History is not kind to those who play God.

"History is not kind to those who play God" would mean that God is dead. Or in hell?
In any case it's a very bad reason not to exercise our power to remake humanity.

Our fight against disease, famine and war are all "us playing God".
The alternative, to just accept suffering as "what nature intended for us" is a total non-starter with me!

This is an absolutely disgusting and repulsive concept.

Anyone who agreed to permit one of these ungodly devices into their brain would give a corporation, an entity with the sole purpose of generating revenue, control over all of their thoughts. They could implement advertisements, they could compel users to make some purchase or to do something beneficial to the corporation or anyone who were to pay the corporation, and on top of all of that they could implement a sort of catch-22 clause into the device which would not permit any consideration whatsoever of the user having the device removed. This is a totally and completely demonic contraption which if enforced upon all persons could usher in an irreversible and inviolable corporate world order, or fascist or communist world order, or any sort of world order or organisation or system which the controller of the chips could envision. I can not mentally recite the word 'no' enough to give this proposition what it is due.

East Blepia wrote:This is an absolutely disgusting and repulsive concept.

Anyone who agreed to permit one of these ungodly devices into their brain would give a corporation, an entity with the sole purpose of generating revenue, control over all of their thoughts. They could implement advertisements, they could compel users to make some purchase or to do something beneficial to the corporation or anyone who were to pay the corporation, and on top of all of that they could implement a sort of catch-22 clause into the device which would not permit any consideration whatsoever of the user having the device removed. This is a totally and completely demonic contraption which if enforced upon all persons could usher in an irreversible and inviolable corporate world order, or fascist or communist world order, or any sort of world order or organisation or system which the controller of the chips could envision. I can not mentally recite the word 'no' enough to give this proposition what it is due.

Musk's brain implants couldn't do any of the shit you describe, even if he wanted it to. Letting Musk put this thing in your brain might kill you, or injure you, or might just do nothing, but it definitely won't give him control of your thoughts.

Ifreann wrote:

East Blepia wrote:This is an absolutely disgusting and repulsive concept.

Anyone who agreed to permit one of these ungodly devices into their brain would give a corporation, an entity with the sole purpose of generating revenue, control over all of their thoughts. They could implement advertisements, they could compel users to make some purchase or to do something beneficial to the corporation or anyone who were to pay the corporation, and on top of all of that they could implement a sort of catch-22 clause into the device which would not permit any consideration whatsoever of the user having the device removed. This is a totally and completely demonic contraption which if enforced upon all persons could usher in an irreversible and inviolable corporate world order, or fascist or communist world order, or any sort of world order or organisation or system which the controller of the chips could envision. I can not mentally recite the word 'no' enough to give this proposition what it is due.

Musk's brain implants couldn't do any of the shit you describe, even if he wanted it to. Letting Musk put this thing in your brain might kill you, or injure you, or might just do nothing, but it definitely won't give him control of your thoughts.

The device could have some sort of wireless receptor which could be remotely controlled.

I choose a chocolate chip

Absolutely not in my body. The potential for this to be abused by governments and megacorporations is unreal

Too abusable. Only acceptable if airgapped and all software is open-source and a copy of it has been posted on various apolitical internet cracker communities for a few months before actually being used for them find any potential backdoors.

East Blepia wrote:This is an absolutely disgusting and repulsive concept.

Anyone who agreed to permit one of these ungodly devices into their brain would give a corporation, an entity with the sole purpose of generating revenue, control over all of their thoughts. They could implement advertisements, they could compel users to make some purchase or to do something beneficial to the corporation or anyone who were to pay the corporation, and on top of all of that they could implement a sort of catch-22 clause into the device which would not permit any consideration whatsoever of the user having the device removed. This is a totally and completely demonic contraption which if enforced upon all persons could usher in an irreversible and inviolable corporate world order, or fascist or communist world order, or any sort of world order or organisation or system which the controller of the chips could envision. I can not mentally recite the word 'no' enough to give this proposition what it is due.

Except it’s technologically impossible to do any of the things you just mentioned

Bassoe wrote:Too abusable. Only acceptable if airgapped and all software is open-source and a copy of it has been posted on various apolitical internet cracker communities for a few months before actually being used for them find any potential backdoors.

Uh, open source is just handing hackers everything they need to abuse it.

I am a transhumanist, but anything messing with my brain is a no-no.

Rusozak wrote:

Bassoe wrote:Too abusable. Only acceptable if airgapped and all software is open-source and a copy of it has been posted on various apolitical internet cracker communities for a few months before actually being used for them find any potential backdoors.

Uh, open source is just handing hackers everything they need to abuse it.

This entire thing is fatally flawed at its base level. Should only be used for medical reasons, anything outside of that is asking for trouble

Bassoe wrote:Too abusable. Only acceptable if airgapped and all software is open-source and a copy of it has been posted on various apolitical internet cracker communities for a few months before actually being used for them find any potential backdoors.

Not seeing any incentive beyond Showing Off for the crackers to find backdoors or alert others to them. But if we're going open source (as we should) it doesn't hurt to put the code out as a challenge.

I don't know Musk's attitude to Open Source, but I imagine it is bad. "Free stuff? Not on my watch!"

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Bassoe wrote:Too abusable. Only acceptable if airgapped and all software is open-source and a copy of it has been posted on various apolitical internet cracker communities for a few months before actually being used for them find any potential backdoors.

Not seeing any incentive beyond Showing Off for the crackers to find backdoors or alert others to them. But if we're going open source (as we should) it doesn't hurt to put the code out as a challenge.

I don't know Musk's attitude to Open Source, but I imagine it is bad. "Free stuff? Not on my watch!"

There's no way this would be open source, this whole thing screams proprietary

Ifreann wrote:

Region of Dwipantara wrote:Neuroscientists generally agreed that Neuralink's aims are perfectly legit; what's unrealistic is their superambitious schedule. Also unlike Hyperloop, which is basically train but futuristic, a Neuralink breakthrough will open the gates to a completely new technological can of worms, where there will a lot of competition.

My point is that this Iron Man wannabe has a well-established history of believing himself to be on the verge of changing the world with his ideas for new technological marvels, but it turns out that his half-baked ideas aren't as simple as he imagined and then the project fizzles out until he half-bakes a new idea. In a few months he'll have "invented" something else and we can only hope that no one is actually rich and desperate enough to get themselves killed in the meantime.

Hi! I'm rich and desperate!

Rusozak wrote:

Bassoe wrote:Too abusable. Only acceptable if airgapped and all software is open-source and a copy of it has been posted on various apolitical internet cracker communities for a few months before actually being used for them find any potential backdoors.

Uh, open source is just handing hackers everything they need to abuse it.

... then learning from that and fixing the vulnerabilities. Closed Source is essentially "security by obscurity" and tends to work perfectly until one day it fails catastrophically.

Open source is like a ragtag army of hardened veterans.
Closed Source is like an army that parades perfectly but has never seen battle.

You know the core elements and heavy lifters of the internet all run Open Source? It's secure.
You know space programs and supercomputers all run Open Source? A 'crash' is a big deal to them. It's reliable.

Windows, iOS, Android all have to be updated regularly, and at least some of those are security holes. Closed source has at least as many vulnerabilities, but because it relies on the wider community not finding them, it's more disastrous when someone does.

Crysuko wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Not seeing any incentive beyond Showing Off for the crackers to find backdoors or alert others to them. But if we're going open source (as we should) it doesn't hurt to put the code out as a challenge.

I don't know Musk's attitude to Open Source, but I imagine it is bad. "Free stuff? Not on my watch!"

There's no way this would be open source, this whole thing screams proprietary

He may intend that, but the best laid plans of muskrats and men oft go astray

The name originates from the Late Greek μόσχος 'moskhos', from Persian 'mushk', similar to Sanskrit मुष्क muṣka ("testicle"), derived from Proto-Indo-European noun "mouse". The deer gland was thought to resemble a scrotum. --Wikipedia Musk

I'm sure mr. Musk has heard this before.

Finally, the chips are coming!

I have depression, anxiety and aspbergers, and yet, to a chip in my head, I say fuck no

By the way, the Dragon capsule and the Falcon 9 rocket both run Linux.

As ZDNet explains, chips that have to go to space need to be radiation-hardened, and this being a niche market they can take up to 10 years to develop. In other words, they're old and slow. Linux is much more easily "stripped back" to perform a narrower range of tasks but quickly enough on slow processors (and btw reliably: this probably matters when space radiation is occasionally getting through and causing errors in the processor). So this was probably the main reason to choose Linux, with not-costing-anything to license being second. Any ideological preference of Musk's wouldn't factor much at all.

From the same source: the miniature satellites of Starlink also run Linux.

Australian rePublic wrote:I have depression, anxiety and aspbergers, and yet, to a chip in my head, I say fuck no

*five seconds of pure orgasmic pleasure*

Is it still "fuck no" or do you need another blast?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:I have depression, anxiety and aspbergers, and yet, to a chip in my head, I say fuck no

*five seconds of pure orgasmic pleasure*

Is it still "fuck no" or do you need another blast?

Fuck no

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:I have depression, anxiety and aspbergers, and yet, to a chip in my head, I say fuck no

*five seconds of pure orgasmic pleasure*

Is it still "fuck no" or do you need another blast?

Get people addicted to it then use it to manipulate them. That's the kind of abuse people are afraid of.