5 ms·

Two kinds of people will buy them: enthusiasts and people suffering from chronic conditions with nowhere else to turn. Similarly, you can buy unapproved, unrese

by slibhb 4y ago

Two kinds of people will buy them: enthusiasts and people suffering from chronic conditions with nowhere else to turn. Similarly, you can buy unapproved, unresearched medication on the internet. You take on the risk. Personally I like the idea that people can take their lives in their own hands. As long as it's clear that they're opting out of the guiderails put into place for those of us who are more cautious.

tracker1 4y ago
I'm fine with that, assuming the devices, specifications, communication protocols etc are available... even if I (anyone) wouldn't be able to do it themselves, leaving it as an option for someone to take up is far better than left in the cold with an uncontrolled implant in one's body.
bee_rider 4y ago
Letting people take their lives into their own hands is fine for now, while neural implants are largely useless for enhancement. If there came a day when a neural implant provided, say, a massive competitive advantage when working, we’d probably want to regulate. But I mean widespread neural enhancements are probably as far away as… maybe not post scarcity society, but at least “I can get by on basic income” society. So I’m not too worried.
- Mtinie 4y ago
  If it means those of us who compete daily with our brains have an opportunity for an advantage—or at least parity—I’m all for it. I don’t expect it will happen within my lifetime but it would be nice for those who follow.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    I'm interested in whether you feel the same way about drug use in competitive sports? My assumption from your position on cognitive enhancement is that you'd support a separate category where your allowed to dope as much as you'd like? Do we have any duty as a society to dis-incentivise people from pushing that too far?
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      I do think there’s a fundamental difference between sport (where we explicitly want to create a level playing field for fun) and the economy (where we’re competing with each other, but also against the universe). We might find that there are some tasks where having people take on risky enhancements really helps “team humanity.” But certainly wouldn’t want “takes on risky enhancements” to become a trait required to get by. I’d look at it as like minimum wage or OSHA. You could provide yourself a competitive advantage by working for less than minimum wage, or by being willing to work in an unsafe environment. But as a society, we’ve decided that engaging in that race to the bottom is not something we want to do.
      - Jochim 4y ago
        > We might find that there are some tasks where having people take on risky enhancements really helps “team humanity.” But certainly wouldn’t want “takes on risky enhancements” to become a trait required to get by. You may already have heard of it but there's a movie called "Gattaca"[0] that questions a world where genetic enhancements have become effectively mandatory. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
        JoeAltmaier 4y ago
        Is that really the theme though? Last time I watched it, the theme was "Man with debilitating genetic defect (high risk of sudden heart failure) was denied a chance at piloting a billion-dollar spacecraft. So not an underdog; a selfish person wanting to risk public money and lives, for personal glory. I never saw the theme the movies is purported to present. I think Gattaca is conflated with other genetic-modification memes because it came out around the time those were current. If the director wanted the movie to be about a hero, they fumbled it.
  - puchatek 4y ago
    In Homo Deus, Harari mentions research by DARPA (?) on a focus-enhancing helmet. This was reported some years ago already and the journalist who wrote the piece had experienced the effects first have in a sniping simulation. So to some degree the tech is already here.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Personally I like the idea that people can take their lives in their own hands But rhey are not putting ut in rheir own hand, they are putting their luge unto rhe habds of a capricious and cruel, and occasionally fraudulent executive. Wonder, where did we see this play out before? "renew subscribtuon or we turn off the implant"? This will be a story of human rights abuses, debt ytades and endentured servitude.
- goldenkey 4y ago
  Movie: Repo Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo_Men
hinkley 4y ago
If we were a lot better about not letting your teens and twenties so heavily define your story arc as a human, maybe. But without some sort of insurance and/or escrow program any implant than gives you any kind of edge will be accepted by people too young to really understand the consequences. Especially the sorts of people who think they'll dead by 30 so side effects that show up in your 40's are no big deal.
- concordDance 4y ago
  What kind of consequences are people in their 20s too young to understand? In democracies we generally assume those 21+ can understand all the issues, which is why we let them vote. This seems sorta like not letting 80 year olds have email because they don't understand it and might get scammed.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Career choice. Elective surgeries. You’re here talking to a group largely composed of people who won the career lottery. Did all of your college friends fare so well? How about high school? Hell in middle school and high school I had people trying to talk me out of software as a career because we were on one of the three AI hype cycles I’ve personally lived through. It’s the rare, inspirational person who says Fuck It, I’m Starting Over in their thirties or even later. Many of the losers just live lives of quiet desperation. Those are the people I was thinking about above.
  - bombolo 4y ago
    You're either 20 or haven't met a 20 year old in a looooong time.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      Mid 30s but do have one acquaintance who's 20. It's possible I have a biased sample, but I have honestly not noticed a big difference in decision making between 20 year olds and 40 year olds.
tsimionescu 4y ago
I think the biggest problem is that people desperate for a cure or even a bit of relief are the easiest possible prey for fraudsters peddling snake oil. You need extremely good regulation to be able to both allow innovative life-saving treatments to be tested and offered to those in need as soon as possible, but also to prevent too-good-to-be-true lies to be sold to the most vulnerable.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  This is the system we already have, more or less. People who get neruo-tech, get it from highly vetted companies with a plausible risk-benefit tradeoff.

by slibhb 4y ago

tracker1 4y ago

I'm fine with that, assuming the devices, specifications, communication protocols etc are available... even if I (anyone) wouldn't be able to do it themselves, leaving it as an option for someone to take up is far better than left in the cold with an uncontrolled implant in one's body.

bee_rider 4y ago

Letting people take their lives into their own hands is fine for now, while neural implants are largely useless for enhancement. If there came a day when a neural implant provided, say, a massive competitive advantage when working, we’d probably want to regulate. But I mean widespread neural enhancements are probably as far away as… maybe not post scarcity society, but at least “I can get by on basic income” society. So I’m not too worried.

Mtinie 4y ago
If it means those of us who compete daily with our brains have an opportunity for an advantage—or at least parity—I’m all for it. I don’t expect it will happen within my lifetime but it would be nice for those who follow.
- Jochim 4y ago
  I'm interested in whether you feel the same way about drug use in competitive sports? My assumption from your position on cognitive enhancement is that you'd support a separate category where your allowed to dope as much as you'd like? Do we have any duty as a society to dis-incentivise people from pushing that too far?
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    I do think there’s a fundamental difference between sport (where we explicitly want to create a level playing field for fun) and the economy (where we’re competing with each other, but also against the universe). We might find that there are some tasks where having people take on risky enhancements really helps “team humanity.” But certainly wouldn’t want “takes on risky enhancements” to become a trait required to get by. I’d look at it as like minimum wage or OSHA. You could provide yourself a competitive advantage by working for less than minimum wage, or by being willing to work in an unsafe environment. But as a society, we’ve decided that engaging in that race to the bottom is not something we want to do.
    - Jochim 4y ago
      > We might find that there are some tasks where having people take on risky enhancements really helps “team humanity.” But certainly wouldn’t want “takes on risky enhancements” to become a trait required to get by. You may already have heard of it but there's a movie called "Gattaca"[0] that questions a world where genetic enhancements have become effectively mandatory. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
      - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
        Is that really the theme though? Last time I watched it, the theme was "Man with debilitating genetic defect (high risk of sudden heart failure) was denied a chance at piloting a billion-dollar spacecraft. So not an underdog; a selfish person wanting to risk public money and lives, for personal glory. I never saw the theme the movies is purported to present. I think Gattaca is conflated with other genetic-modification memes because it came out around the time those were current. If the director wanted the movie to be about a hero, they fumbled it.
- puchatek 4y ago
  In Homo Deus, Harari mentions research by DARPA (?) on a focus-enhancing helmet. This was reported some years ago already and the journalist who wrote the piece had experienced the effects first have in a sniping simulation. So to some degree the tech is already here.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> Personally I like the idea that people can take their lives in their own hands But rhey are not putting ut in rheir own hand, they are putting their luge unto rhe habds of a capricious and cruel, and occasionally fraudulent executive. Wonder, where did we see this play out before? "renew subscribtuon or we turn off the implant"? This will be a story of human rights abuses, debt ytades and endentured servitude.

goldenkey 4y ago
Movie: Repo Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo_Men

hinkley 4y ago

If we were a lot better about not letting your teens and twenties so heavily define your story arc as a human, maybe. But without some sort of insurance and/or escrow program any implant than gives you any kind of edge will be accepted by people too young to really understand the consequences. Especially the sorts of people who think they'll dead by 30 so side effects that show up in your 40's are no big deal.

concordDance 4y ago
What kind of consequences are people in their 20s too young to understand? In democracies we generally assume those 21+ can understand all the issues, which is why we let them vote. This seems sorta like not letting 80 year olds have email because they don't understand it and might get scammed.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Career choice. Elective surgeries. You’re here talking to a group largely composed of people who won the career lottery. Did all of your college friends fare so well? How about high school? Hell in middle school and high school I had people trying to talk me out of software as a career because we were on one of the three AI hype cycles I’ve personally lived through. It’s the rare, inspirational person who says Fuck It, I’m Starting Over in their thirties or even later. Many of the losers just live lives of quiet desperation. Those are the people I was thinking about above.
- bombolo 4y ago
  You're either 20 or haven't met a 20 year old in a looooong time.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Mid 30s but do have one acquaintance who's 20. It's possible I have a biased sample, but I have honestly not noticed a big difference in decision making between 20 year olds and 40 year olds.

tsimionescu 4y ago

I think the biggest problem is that people desperate for a cure or even a bit of relief are the easiest possible prey for fraudsters peddling snake oil. You need extremely good regulation to be able to both allow innovative life-saving treatments to be tested and offered to those in need as soon as possible, but also to prevent too-good-to-be-true lies to be sold to the most vulnerable.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
This is the system we already have, more or less. People who get neruo-tech, get it from highly vetted companies with a plausible risk-benefit tradeoff.