Araraukar wrote:OOC: I am well aware of that research, because human mind and memory are among the subjects of great interest to me. FMRI has already been known to be pretty much fool-proof lie detector for a while as well, but it's still not being used as a lie detector in trials. Why? Because it's unwieldy as it requires the person to be hooked up to the MRI machine. Same here. Even if the system was perfected so that it can actually read thoughts, it would still require you to be in a FMRI machine. Those are big and unwieldy. Even in the best case scenario it would only strengthen the argument against this thing, as it would make the "conspiracy to commit X" crimes all that much harder to act on.
As for roleplaying... I have an actual telepathic species and they additionally utilize brain implants capable of "reading" thoughts in my RP, and yet I am arguing against this on the basis that most nations in NS will not. FT nations are even at best guess, about 10% of all nations. Magical nations that can achieve thought reading via magical means, likely overlapping slightly with FT, but let's call that another 10%. That still leaves 80% of nations where it is not something that can feasibly be achieved. So the strength cannot be significant, as it does not significantly impact a significant amount of member nations.
Ara, repeating the assertion "de minimis non curat lex" doesn't make it true here. I don't recall these overwrought protestations of pointlessness to AI legislation when Sierra Lyricalia was writing AI Coexistence Protocol, pulling out magical statistics of how 80 pc of nations don't have synthetic life. But that aside, your conception of conspiracy does appear to be at least somewhat deficient. See supra (edited, wrong post link). And otherwise, if you want to make flowering proclamations on the GA rules all day long in that static unproductive fashion, feel free to do so.
Araraukar wrote:I also find it highly hypocritical of IA to use "but RP!" as the basis on a proposal after years of calling all imaginative RP "wanking", and strawmanning my RP in particular, simply because I've opposed his bully tactics. But his morals or the lack of them are not the point here.
I'm unclear how I have now been cast as Titus Annius Milo, but if that is the narrative, I'll quote T Swift, I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative. Also see id., which clarifies my nuanced and generally pro-activity position on the topic. But about those latter points, I would never make insinuations that someone who disagrees with me must do so due to mental illness or reject as unimportant, proposals with clear analogues in real life. I would outright refuse to make slanderous claims of my political opponents' inherent immorality and blackened souls if they contributed to multiple communities without pay, without remuneration, and without expectation of honours.
