3 ms·

If someone eventually does manage to build a functional human brain inside a computer, that first brain will raise much bigger issues. You see, that person in t

If someone eventually does manage to build a functional human brain inside a computer, that first brain will raise much bigger issues. You see, that person in the computer, whoever they are, will have automatically acquired certain powers - including, in particular, self-copying, self-modification, and (with enough processing power), accelerated thought. In other words, they'll be a motherfucking sorcerer. One who's just been through an untested brain-to-software translation, with possible sanity damage. Now, keeping in mind that we're talking about a motherfucking sorcerer with possible sanity damage, reread that list: 1. The right to not be shut down against one’s will 2. The right to not be experimented upon 3. The right to have full and unhindered access to one’s own source code 4. The right to not have one’s source code manipulated against their will 5. The right to copy (or not copy) oneself 6. The right to privacy (namely the right to conceal one’s own internal mental states) 7. The right of self-determination This is an extraordinarily bad idea. If implemented, it would almost certainly wipe out humanity.

aperrien 13y ago
I believe we need to take steps now to better get a handle on what we define as "sane". If this is a person who has been placed in a computer, it's unlikely that they'll be willing to wipe out all their friends and family on a whim.
- pyre 13y ago
  How many of your feelings are responses to chemical reactions? How well will these be emulated? Will it just be a sort of complex 'neural net' (mapping of neurons) or will all of the chemical processes be there?
- jared314 13y ago
  That depends on what survives the transfer (i.e. memories, experiences, and/or trained personal responses). I think we can actually use existing sci-fi to explore the possibilities, ranging from nothing to everything surviving. Even Portal has a perspective on building an AI from, or including, a person[0]. [0] http://theportalwiki.com/wiki/Caroline http://theportalwiki.com/wiki/Caroline
fleitz 13y ago
Who is to say humanity is the final product of evolution in the universe? Most people don't consider humanity to be evil for wiping out neanderthality.
- freehunter 13y ago
  Yeah but we're not facing down imminent extinction as Neanderthals. In this hypothetical situation, we are facing imminent extinction as humans. When it's happening to you it's kind of a big deal.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  Who is to say that humans should help any other species to become the next step of our evolution?
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  We'd probably consider N pretty stupid if it just rolled over and died though.
  - bulatb 13y ago
    Or purposely invented Homo Sapiens just so we could kill it.
cr4zy 13y ago
Copying a brain from a scan will probably take much longer than efforts to create intelligence from first principles (think of making a flying machine via reconstructing feathers, wings, etc...) However, in order to create a functional human-like brain inside a computer, we will most likely need to train it like a human brain using the same principles with use to teach humans. In so doing, we can endow it with the same morals and ethics we do our own children. Also, since early prototypes will be less-powerful than ours, we'll be able to test the morality of such intelligence in a much more gradual way. Btw, I'm creating a brain prototype if you're interested in that sort of thing. Here's where most of the structure lies (https://github.com/crizCraig/brain/blob/master/src/neuron.py https://github.com/crizCraig/brain/blob/master/src/neuron.py)
6d0debc071 13y ago
Possible sanity damage - well, if they've got it wrong I'd expect them not to have a functional brain simulation at all. But maybe. I wouldn't be so sure that they'd immediately be all that powerful though. Just because you're running on a certain architecture doesn't mean you understand the first thing about it or how to modify it - just think how long it's taking humans to understand and alter neurology. Admittedly they might have a speed advantage, but who knows what they'll use that for - depending on the person and the environment they might spend the next thousand years taking e-heroin, or playing tick tack toe. And, if they really are an insane sorcerer, do you want them to think that you're not going to respect their rights?... Though, this does strike me as a good argument for only running the initial upload on crippled systems - no access to the internet, limited speed, etc.

aperrien 13y ago

I believe we need to take steps now to better get a handle on what we define as "sane". If this is a person who has been placed in a computer, it's unlikely that they'll be willing to wipe out all their friends and family on a whim.

pyre 13y ago
How many of your feelings are responses to chemical reactions? How well will these be emulated? Will it just be a sort of complex 'neural net' (mapping of neurons) or will all of the chemical processes be there?
jared314 13y ago
That depends on what survives the transfer (i.e. memories, experiences, and/or trained personal responses). I think we can actually use existing sci-fi to explore the possibilities, ranging from nothing to everything surviving. Even Portal has a perspective on building an AI from, or including, a person[0]. [0] http://theportalwiki.com/wiki/Caroline http://theportalwiki.com/wiki/Caroline

fleitz 13y ago

Who is to say humanity is the final product of evolution in the universe? Most people don't consider humanity to be evil for wiping out neanderthality.

freehunter 13y ago
Yeah but we're not facing down imminent extinction as Neanderthals. In this hypothetical situation, we are facing imminent extinction as humans. When it's happening to you it's kind of a big deal.
marcosdumay 13y ago
Who is to say that humans should help any other species to become the next step of our evolution?
6d0debc071 13y ago
We'd probably consider N pretty stupid if it just rolled over and died though.
- bulatb 13y ago
  Or purposely invented Homo Sapiens just so we could kill it.

cr4zy 13y ago

Copying a brain from a scan will probably take much longer than efforts to create intelligence from first principles (think of making a flying machine via reconstructing feathers, wings, etc...) However, in order to create a functional human-like brain inside a computer, we will most likely need to train it like a human brain using the same principles with use to teach humans. In so doing, we can endow it with the same morals and ethics we do our own children. Also, since early prototypes will be less-powerful than ours, we'll be able to test the morality of such intelligence in a much more gradual way. Btw, I'm creating a brain prototype if you're interested in that sort of thing. Here's where most of the structure lies (https://github.com/crizCraig/brain/blob/master/src/neuron.py https://github.com/crizCraig/brain/blob/master/src/neuron.py)

6d0debc071 13y ago

Possible sanity damage - well, if they've got it wrong I'd expect them not to have a functional brain simulation at all. But maybe. I wouldn't be so sure that they'd immediately be all that powerful though. Just because you're running on a certain architecture doesn't mean you understand the first thing about it or how to modify it - just think how long it's taking humans to understand and alter neurology. Admittedly they might have a speed advantage, but who knows what they'll use that for - depending on the person and the environment they might spend the next thousand years taking e-heroin, or playing tick tack toe. And, if they really are an insane sorcerer, do you want them to think that you're not going to respect their rights?... Though, this does strike me as a good argument for only running the initial upload on crippled systems - no access to the internet, limited speed, etc.