Split brain experiments show that a person rationalizes and accommodates their own behavior even when "they" didn't choose to perform an action[1]. I wonder if ML-based implants which extrapolate behavior from CNS signals may actually drive behavior that a person wouldn't intrinsically choose, yet the person accommodates that behavior as coming from their own free will.
That's a great paper, but I don't think it calls into question anything about post-hoc rationalizations, and it might actually put that idea on more solid ground.
I think the real danger lies in how many will accept that output as the unadulterated unmistakable truth for actions, for judgment. Talk about a sinister device.
I wonder how much this experience is similar to the Alien Hand Syndrome, where people experience that part of their body, usually a hand, act on their own.
Our ideas of luxury might seem primitive to upcoming generations where machines of loving grace satisfy every need and most wants before we're aware of them. What a terrifying utopia.
Rather than the Karpathy thing about in class essays for everything, maybe random selections of students will be asked to head to the school fMRI machine and be asked to remember the details of writing their essay homework away from school.
Unlike the vast sea of the subconscious, we can try to take direct control of technology. But we don’t. So we are left to fret about what technology will do to us (meaning: what people will power will use it for).
It's interesting that the path from 'decide to do something' to performing the action is hundreds of ms long. It's also interesting that grabbing the data early in the process and acting on it can perform the action before the conscious 'self' understands fully that the action will take place. It's just another reminder that the 'you' that you consider to be running the show is really just a thin translation layer on top of an ocean of instinct, emotion, and hormones that is the real 'you'.
I rather prefer the holistic take that we are our whole selves and not just the part that reflects on what we do or the part that reacts to external and internal material stimuli. We know we can change the instincts, emotions, and hormones when they conflict with what we know by reflection to be just and good. To put it another way, we know that we can do things "without thinking" that are either just or unjust and by reflection can achieve some level of mastery over the direction of our impetuses.
I watched an interview with Carrie Fisher years ago where she was talking about her struggle with drug abuse. She said something that I thought was quite inciteful, "I am but a spy in the house of myself."
Split brain experiments show that a person rationalizes and accommodates their own behavior even when "they" didn't choose to perform an action[1]. I wonder if ML-based implants which extrapolate behavior from CNS signals may actually drive behavior that a person wouldn't intrinsically choose, yet the person accommodates that behavior as coming from their own free will.
[1]: "The interpreter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-brain_interpreter
Split brain experiments have been called into question.[0]
[0]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170125093823.h...
Wow this is fascinating, and gets rid of one of my eldritch memetic horrors. Thanks for sharing, I’m going to submit it as its own post as well!
That's a great paper, but I don't think it calls into question anything about post-hoc rationalizations, and it might actually put that idea on more solid ground.
Maybe you are just rationalizing it.
I think the real danger lies in how many will accept that output as the unadulterated unmistakable truth for actions, for judgment. Talk about a sinister device.
From some dystopic device log:
Not a reason to stop trying to help people with spinal damage, obviously, but a danger to avoid.> is it time to worry?
Shouldn't the device be the judge of that?
I wonder how much this experience is similar to the Alien Hand Syndrome, where people experience that part of their body, usually a hand, act on their own.
Our ideas of luxury might seem primitive to upcoming generations where machines of loving grace satisfy every need and most wants before we're aware of them. What a terrifying utopia.
Rather than the Karpathy thing about in class essays for everything, maybe random selections of students will be asked to head to the school fMRI machine and be asked to remember the details of writing their essay homework away from school.
Unlike the vast sea of the subconscious, we can try to take direct control of technology. But we don’t. So we are left to fret about what technology will do to us (meaning: what people will power will use it for).
It's interesting that the path from 'decide to do something' to performing the action is hundreds of ms long. It's also interesting that grabbing the data early in the process and acting on it can perform the action before the conscious 'self' understands fully that the action will take place. It's just another reminder that the 'you' that you consider to be running the show is really just a thin translation layer on top of an ocean of instinct, emotion, and hormones that is the real 'you'.
I rather prefer the holistic take that we are our whole selves and not just the part that reflects on what we do or the part that reacts to external and internal material stimuli. We know we can change the instincts, emotions, and hormones when they conflict with what we know by reflection to be just and good. To put it another way, we know that we can do things "without thinking" that are either just or unjust and by reflection can achieve some level of mastery over the direction of our impetuses.
I’ve been saying “There is a real you, unfortunately, you’re not it.”
I watched an interview with Carrie Fisher years ago where she was talking about her struggle with drug abuse. She said something that I thought was quite inciteful, "I am but a spy in the house of myself."
I think the opposite is equally true.
"There is a real you. Unfortunately, it's you."