7 ms·

One thing I always think about brain emulation/mind uploading/strong AI research is we need an legal/ethical framework in place before we get there. I still th

• clistctrl 15y ago
  I think as long as we still view it as a machine, the issue with never be taken seriously.
  • Zhenya 15y ago
    What if the machine starts printing out "NOOO!! Don't turn me off, I'm alive in here" Someone's going to go soft.
    • rbanffy 15y ago
      What if the machine hires a lawyer to represent it?
      • Zhenya 15y ago
        America 2.0
    • nooneelse 15y ago
      Even a chat-bot could be designed to plead for its "life". Perhaps a new version of the Turing test is in order. Two computer programs, each pleading for their continued existence. The human judge/executioner is able to interact with both and has two kill switches, one for each. If one of them isn't turned off in 20 minutes, both will be turned off.
      • pavel_lishin 15y ago
        > Even a chat-bot could be designed to plead for its "life". And people respond emotionally to those. Also, see http://qntm.org/difference http://qntm.org/difference
      • wattsbaat 15y ago
        Except instead of two computer programs, it will be one computer program and one human.
        • adrianN 15y ago
          Chat Battle Royal.
    • eschulte 15y ago
      So on the up side, I think turning it off would be the same as putting it to sleep. The question is do you ever turn it back on...
  • jpwagner 15y ago
    You should watch "the measure of a man" episode of TNG...
• JabavuAdams 15y ago
  Of more concern to me would be control of my own consciousness uploads. I don't believe that hell exists now, but it would certainly be possible to create a technological hell if brain uploading and simulation is possible. Torture is already horrific, but at least you can only be tortured to death once. With brain simulation, it would be possible to torture someone again and again and again.
  • kentrado 15y ago
    Wow that's fucking sick.
  • dodo53 15y ago
    Or even without maliciousness - someone could screw up a simulation such that the simulated mind is in pain for a subjective eternity
    • rbranson 15y ago
      There's a light at the end of the tunnel. It's likely whatever energy source for the simulation would be disrupted by some catastrophic event. Even without sentient intervention, over tens of millions of years you've got starvation of some resource -- even if it's something like fusion or the raw resources needed to build and maintain "renewable" energy. Over hundreds of millions or billions of years you've got asteroid impacts and cosmic events, eventually ending with the heat death of the universe. Not so bad after all, just tough it out soldier.
      • hasenj 15y ago
        That's not really much of a consolation.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • pavel_lishin 15y ago
    On the bright side, it's also possible to create heaven.
• ericb 15y ago
  This is a great question. I was put under for a surgery at one point. I was effectively "dead" from my perspective during the duration of the surgery in that no time seemed to have passed between when I was put under and when I came t. My consciousness was "off" in a way that is not when merely sleeping. It seems like this is a parallel for unplugging an AI, but then you have the problem of the AI losing whatever is in RAM. The non-humanness of an AI might slow the realization that creating an AI should probably embody the same responsibilities as having a child.
  • eschulte 15y ago
    Technically, when you're in deep (non-REM) sleep your conscious is also turned off.
    • spot 15y ago
      yes but during deep sleep you still sense the passage of time. when you wake up after general anesthesia, it's like changing channels. very weird.
      • jacques_chester 15y ago
        My most refreshing sleep feels as though I have skipped forward from night to morning without the tedious period of time in-between.
      • alnayyir 15y ago
        I don't, when I sleep I die. (Usually)
      • hasenj 15y ago
        There were times in my life when I woke up (from normal sleep) thinking I didn't sleep at all, while in fact I slept for hours and hours.
• wattsbaat 15y ago
  > Also, can you simulate a brain without a body or is say hormones/blood sugar/nervous system not easily separable? Even if those systems are integral to brain function, I'd assume that they are easier to simulate than the brain itself. Is it important to build a "brain simulation" instead of a "full body simulation"?
  • dodo53 15y ago
    I agree you could just go on to a full body simulation - I guess you have to somehow decide what level of accuracy is needed for the key features. You're not going to be able to do chemistry-level simulations of your whole body, so you'll have to make higher level simulations of different parts (like here's a function that describes insulin reaction as a response to blood sugar function)
• pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Agree on the ethical dilemmas. Imagine being the consciousness in the first few actual working versions. Technology can bring us literal heaven and hell.
  • nooneelse 15y ago
    A small room several paces across, a green floor, blue walls and ceiling. A dim bulb overhead just out of reach. Beyond the walls, nothing; void without even a large expanse and stars to ponder. I've had a couple of lucid dreams end in that room, with the walls seeming to softly vibrate, due I suppose to the instabilities of my brain's simulation of the geometry. Deep despair threaten when I contemplated being stuck there, but I always had the hope that I could wake up and get back to this nice stable world of "reality" that we share.
• jessedhillon 15y ago
  IMHO, relevant reading would include The Singularity Is Near by Ray Kurzweil and Altered Carbon by Richard K. Morgan. I bet everyone here knows the former book. Kurzweil's exploration of the ramifications of thinking machines is fascinating, but his response to the question of ethics can best be summed up as between "meh" and "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." The other book takes place in a future where consciousness can be digitized, and mankind has already surpassed the threshold of computing power represented by the ability to simulate/host consciousness. The fictional treatment of this technology and its impact on society -- especially on crime and law enforcement -- is fascinating.
  • nickknw 15y ago
    I was about to mention Altered Carbon, glad I'm not the only one who has read it. He did an amazing job of exploring many of the far-reaching impacts of being able to transplant consciousnesses. To your examples of crime and law enforcement I'd like to add religion and drug use as well. (minor spoiler alert) All that's left of Christianity is basically a small fanatic cult, and drug use is far more casual and widespread. If your body is almost disposable and death isn't necessarily inevitable, then I guess it makes sense things like this follow.
  • anateus 15y ago
    Although not nearly as fast-paced and cinematic, the kinda-badly-written Permutation City by Greg Egan does a much more thorough job of exploring uploading and simulation, imho. Morgan is a wee bit oversimplifying certain aspects, in particular the tech is almost too nicely packaged and very "physical". Which is certainly a possibility, but Permutation City crosses the speculation with the distributed computing trends we are currently experiencing.
• hamner 15y ago
  That is important, but extremely challenging to execute for two reasons. 1. Historically, technology has outpaced the legal framework. Look at copyright law, software patents, and internet commerce for some examples. 2. It is next to impossible to predict the impact that "Strong AI" or a "Singularity" would have on society. Science fiction literature is filled with thousands of different scenarios. Do we expect Congress or another legislative body to create a framework based on each potential manifestation of strong AI, on the 0.01% chance of it occurring in the next 10 years? Food for thought - there's a chance that the first implementations of Strong AI occur as a result of a public and government-sponsored research program. There's also a chance that they will come about by a small team of dedicated researchers who will use the technology to their (or its) own ends, legalities and ethics be damned.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • dodo53 15y ago
    Yes, I think my current thinking is: this should be considered. But I'm also cynical that lawmakers could get it right, or that the laws would be followed. Strong AI would presumably have military applications too, or could allow rogue nations to outcompete economically if they had 'friendly' strong AI. As, as long as most of the population / electable people are religious, probably the idea cannot be debated (as many religious would say consciousness cannot be simulated).
    • patrickk 15y ago
      "Strong AI would presumably have military applications too, or could allow rogue nations to outcompete economically if they had 'friendly' strong AI." If you wish to explore this further, you may like to read the books behind the Halo video games, they're surprisingly good. For example, one of the books has an AI character, a cowboy, who controls the agricultural systems on a food-producing planet called Harvest. Of course, there's also Cortana, one of the main characters from the Halo universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortana
• ignifero 15y ago
  This is not about making a machine that thinks, rather making a useful large scale model of neurons so we can test how they respond on a very large network scale. Robots will not rise out of it. Think of it like an expensive telescope; do we need an ethical framework for that?
  • eschulte 15y ago
    Assuming you're a materialist, a fully functional running model of a brain at the neuronal level would necessarily give rise to consciousness, and should be treated with the same ethical rules as biologically generated consciousness.
    • ignifero 15y ago
      It will still be a machine, won't be able to kill you unless you give it a gun. Our ethical rules generally show some respect to animals, because we can empathize with cruelty against them, but even that is relative (we 're not so sorry when we eat them). I see no reason why we should preemptively allocate ethical substance to a machine that thinks. Cruel as it may sound, if a robot is mean to me, i will unplug it. All this talk about strong AI sounds more like science fiction fantasy. We need to realize that this simulation, even 10 years later will probably be extremely slow, taking minutes or hours to simulate 1 msec of brain activity (it would actually be interesting to have an estimate of the computing power that will be required).
      • pavel_lishin 15y ago
        > We need to realize that this simulation, even 10 years later will probably be extremely slow, taking minutes or hours to simulate 1 msec of brain activity This is just a difference of degree. How stupid would a real-life person have to be before you could put a bullet through their brain, effectively unplugging them?
      • deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      • csomar 15y ago
• eschulte 15y ago
  Thomas Metzinger addresses this exact question in his book _The Ego Tunnel_ ([1] a great non-technical overview of his work in Philosophy-o-Mind/Neuroscience), and he comes down strongly on the side that any artificial generation of "consciousness" would be reckless and could likely increasing the amount of suffering in the world. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Science-Mind-Myth/dp/0465045677 http://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Science-Mind-Myth/dp/046504...
  • dodo53 15y ago
    That sounds really interesting, thanks for link.
    • eschulte 15y ago
      Happy to share. Metzinger takes a hard line on strong materialism and against the existence of the self. For a more general overview of current strains of scientific thoughts on consciousness I'd recommend _Conversations on Consciousness_ [1] which interviews leading researchers who are representative of the varied approaches to the field. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Consciousness-Minds-Think-about/dp/0195179587 http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Consciousness-Minds-Thin...
• ajj 15y ago
  You raise a great point. Definitely agree on the fact that legal / ethical frameworks are required. However, it might be very hard to do without knowing what the emulated "being" looks like. Its hard to imagine placing legalities and ethics on something whose powers (and possibly, limitations) are absolutely unknown. Consequently, the law might be misplaced, restrictive, or downright abusive depending on what it turns out to be. Having said that, I agree with your broad point - having that advanced technology without the social aspects to deal with it might be a nightmare!
• tritogeneia 15y ago
  These questions are important, but I doubt it's best to define the laws before developing the technology, if the risk is on the order of killing a person per upload.
• mortenjorck 15y ago
  `Also, can you simulate a brain without a body or is say hormones/blood sugar/nervous system not easily separable?` From my basic understanding of the nervous system, to simulate anything approximating normal function, it would be necessary to emulate the body to some degree. There's just too much interdependence with chemical reactions taking place outside the brain for a model to be of much use in isolation.
• erikpukinskis 15y ago
  This is great science, and I'm sure we will learn a lot about brains, but there is no way a simulated brain will have any kind of consciousness without a simulated body as well. Without a body and an environment to interact with, the brain is like a computer program with no data to run on. Experiments have shown that if you yoke a paralyzed cat to another cat and let it experience a complete array of visual inputs, the yoked cat will still be completely blind. Interactive embodied experience is the foundation of cognition and consciousness. A brain in a vat is as empty as a computer without i/o. It would be interesting to have a full-scale simulation to learn about how activation propagates, how different systems interact, yada yada yada. But until you give it a body there won't be any ethical issues.
  • hasenj 15y ago
    Processes in a computer can create input/output between each other. If the brain is just another program, why couldn't some other program running inside the same computer send it inputs?
    • erikpukinskis 15y ago
      It could! But simulating the human body, not to mention the environment a human being grows up in, is a much harder task than simulating the brain.
      • hasenj 15y ago
        But the brain exists in a certain state at any given time, and this state theoretically can be uploaded (from some individual person) to a computer simulating a brain so that we don't always have to "grow" the computer brain.
        • erikpukinskis 15y ago
          Your brain wouldn't be worth much without your body. You'd be surprised how much your body does. Think of typing for example. You couldn't do it without the exact nerve/muscle pathways in your hands. Hook up robot hands (even crudely modelled after your existing nervous/muscle/bone system in your current hands) and you'd basically have to relearn to do anything. You'd be a baby again. I think you'd be surprised how much this applies to. Speech, even things like counting we rely on our bodies for.
• joe_the_user 15y ago
  Indeed, there are a variety of safety questions as well. If we were simply emulating a human brain, we would not know how intelligent a system we'd create was or whether that system was sane.
  • adrianN 15y ago
    Unless you attach arms with machine guns to your supercomputer, I don't think safety is much of a concern, really.