4 ms·
It’s a fun hypothetical and not an obvious answer, to me at least. But it’s not at all a similar dilemma to “should we allow the IP empire-building of the 1900
by brookst 2y ago
It’s a fun hypothetical and not an obvious answer, to me at least.
But it’s not at all a similar dilemma to “should we allow the IP empire-building of the 1900’s to claim ownership over the concept of learning from copyrighted material”.
- diggan 2y ago> It’s a fun hypothetical and not an obvious answer, to me at least. As I wrote it out, I didn't know what I thought either. But now some sleep later, I feel like the answer is pretty clearly "No, not worth it", at least from myself. Our exclusive control over access to our mind, is our essential form of self-determination, and what it means to be an individual in society. Cross that boundary (forcefully no less) and it's probably one of the worst ways you could violate a human. Besides, I'm personally not hugely into the whole "aggregate benefits could outweigh individual harms" mindset utilitarians tend to employ, and feels like it misses thinking about the humans involved. Anyways, sorry if the question upset some people, it wasn't meant to paint any specific picture but a thought experiment more or less, as we inch closer to scarier stuff being possible.
- loa_in_ 2y agoEven most morally inclined people tend to overestimate the value of immediate benefits, and underestimate the eventual (especially delayed, unknown) harms.