3 ms·

We're cursed by our own creativity. The tech has a handful of positive use-cases, and a seemingly infinite number of nightmarish abuses that even its inventors

We're cursed by our own creativity. The tech has a handful of positive use-cases, and a seemingly infinite number of nightmarish abuses that even its inventors are terrified of. But they will continue to develop the tech, or someone else will in their place. It's a huge, exciting, valuable advancement that could change the history of our species - not exactly the sort of thing anyone would want to just walk away from. It's not the most dangerous thing that man has ever built, but it is dangerous, and it's probably the most uncomfortably personal. The following was encouraging: > In late 2021, the scientists began to run new experiments. First, they were curious if an algorithm trained on one person could be used on another. They found that it could not — the decoder’s efficacy depended on many hours of individualized training. Next, they tested whether the decoder could be thrown off simply by refusing to cooperate with it. Instead of focusing on the story that was playing through their headphones while inside the fMRI machine, participants were asked to complete other mental tasks, such as naming random animals, or telling a different story in their head. “Both of those rendered it completely unusable,” Huth said. “We didn’t decode the story they were listening to, and we couldn’t decode anything about what they were thinking either.”

rightbyte 3y ago
Thank God for your last quote. The nightmare of the police or whatever reading even what you don't think about would be total. Hopefully they will not find a way to make it work on uncooperative persons any time soon.
- jamiek88 3y ago
  The nightmare situation is them using it and claiming it works with the 'correct interpretation' and that being admissible in court whether or not it does work. We dodged a bullet with the 'polygraph' but times have changed and I could see something like that being accepted. We already have 'fire forensics/arson investigation' which is complete bullshit and just so pseudoscience as well as a lot of other bullshit science around forensics and DNA and questionable 'experts'. That coupled with the unreliability of witness statements, the bullshit around sniffer dogs and it's a wonder there are any guilty people in prison at all.
  - eternityforest 3y ago
    I was not aware that fire forensics was on the bullshit list. Kind of scary if that's true.
    - happytiger 3y ago
      The ACLU’s write up and foia actions raise some crazy questions… > Meanwhile, as CBS Seattle first reported, some scientists are claiming they can “hack” information out of a subject’s brain, and engage in lie detection, by using a simple “brain computer interface”—biofeedback brain-wave readers that are increasingly used to control computers and are available off the shelf for only $300. According to the scientists, a “guilty knowledge test” based on a particular brain wave, the P300, “has a promising use within interrogation protocols that enable detection of potential criminal details held by the suspect.” > Five or so years ago, we looked at this issue in great depth—consulting with experts, hosting a forum, and filing a Freedom of Information Act Request. Around that time several companies were aggressively marketing the technology as lie detectors and for other purposes. One of our concerns was that the technology might be applied by our national security agencies against suspects in the “war on terror,” who would then be mistreated based on inaccurate results. Our FOIA request attempting to find out if that was true did not yield any answers. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/high-tech-mind-readers-are-latest-effort-detect-lies https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/high-tech-mind-r...
    - razakel 3y ago
      There was a man executed in Texas based on evidence that was completely bogus.
patcon 3y ago
This makes me think of the matrix. Maybe one can't shield their true thoughts if they don't know they're in a simulation...?

rightbyte 3y ago

Thank God for your last quote. The nightmare of the police or whatever reading even what you don't think about would be total. Hopefully they will not find a way to make it work on uncooperative persons any time soon.

jamiek88 3y ago
The nightmare situation is them using it and claiming it works with the 'correct interpretation' and that being admissible in court whether or not it does work. We dodged a bullet with the 'polygraph' but times have changed and I could see something like that being accepted. We already have 'fire forensics/arson investigation' which is complete bullshit and just so pseudoscience as well as a lot of other bullshit science around forensics and DNA and questionable 'experts'. That coupled with the unreliability of witness statements, the bullshit around sniffer dogs and it's a wonder there are any guilty people in prison at all.
- eternityforest 3y ago
  I was not aware that fire forensics was on the bullshit list. Kind of scary if that's true.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    The ACLU’s write up and foia actions raise some crazy questions… > Meanwhile, as CBS Seattle first reported, some scientists are claiming they can “hack” information out of a subject’s brain, and engage in lie detection, by using a simple “brain computer interface”—biofeedback brain-wave readers that are increasingly used to control computers and are available off the shelf for only $300. According to the scientists, a “guilty knowledge test” based on a particular brain wave, the P300, “has a promising use within interrogation protocols that enable detection of potential criminal details held by the suspect.” > Five or so years ago, we looked at this issue in great depth—consulting with experts, hosting a forum, and filing a Freedom of Information Act Request. Around that time several companies were aggressively marketing the technology as lie detectors and for other purposes. One of our concerns was that the technology might be applied by our national security agencies against suspects in the “war on terror,” who would then be mistreated based on inaccurate results. Our FOIA request attempting to find out if that was true did not yield any answers. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/high-tech-mind-readers-are-latest-effort-detect-lies https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/high-tech-mind-r...
  - razakel 3y ago
    There was a man executed in Texas based on evidence that was completely bogus.

patcon 3y ago

This makes me think of the matrix. Maybe one can't shield their true thoughts if they don't know they're in a simulation...?