3 ms·
I find the top-level comments here on the whole shockingly negative, uninformed, wildly speculative, and even downright spiteful. From the snide "hope there's
by inimino 7y ago
I find the top-level comments here on the whole shockingly negative, uninformed, wildly speculative, and even downright spiteful.
From the snide "hope there's no bugs" Titanic joke about an insulin pump -- This is a real mom and a real kid you're talking about. You think you're the first person in the room who's read about the Therac-25?? Do you think a snide joke implying catastrophic consequences is appropriate in this context!?
To the apophatic "almost as if she is performing research on a human child when they are not of the age to consent" which raises missing the point nearly to the form of art... almost as if you had memorized a handbook of research ethics guidelines but yet somehow completely forgotten why we do research in the first place and what technology is even good for!
Then we have the comments whining about the author mentioning other work she's done (like having built this stuff for much of her professional career is somehow irrelevant to having thoughts on what the risks and opportunities are?) as though it were pure self-promotion. And the funny-if-not-sad, "Why isn't he turning HIMSELF into a cyborg but his son?", missing both the author's gender and her point. If you'd glanced at the byline or even the author bio before commenting, you could hardly have missed that the author is a woman, not any kind of a "HIMSELF". And maybe, just maybe, if you had read the article just a little more carefully, it would have occurred to you that she is turning her son into a cyborg and not herself because her son is the one who has autism.
> I don’t want to “cure” someone of themselves. Especially not my son. I want them to be able to share that self with the world.
There is fascinating, thoughtful stuff here touching technology, medicine, science, religion, parenting, and ethics, and there are discussions we could be having around these issues, but first we have to actually engage with what's being said.
- joyeuse6701 7y agoTo me (not having read the article) the click bait title sets the tone for the discussion, which makes it acceptable for jokes, despite the underlying seriousness of the topic.
- inimino 7y agoWell perhaps that's the problem. I read a thoughtful if high-level piece about a technologist wrestling with difficult issues while trying to help her son, and came back to see a bunch of jokes based on the provocative title (which is typically picked by an editor not the author) rather than on the article.
- subjectsigma 7y agoAs a counterpoint: the article is sloppy and full of clickbait. The fact that people are sexist / can't read is entirely tangential to that. Any of the "thoughtful stuff" you mentioned has been explored elsewhere in a context where we're not playing games with a real human being that literally can't give informed consent. (And personally, I find some of her more philosophical assertions about those issues pretty tasteless and lacking.) > I find the top-level comments here on the whole shockingly negative, uninformed, wildly speculative, and even downright spiteful. Welcome to the Internet
- inimino 7y agoIf people think the article is poorly written and poorly researched garbage, then they can say that and say why, or just don't comment, but that's no excuse for posting poorly written and poorly researched garbage in response. I'm not saying the article is great, but that the comments here should be better.