News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Abandoned: The human cost of neurotechnology failure by bee_rider on Saturday December 17, 2022 @09:42PM (#34034593)
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.

Re:Abandoned: The human cost of neurotechnology failure by Mtinie on Saturday December 17, 2022 @11:25PM (#34035042)
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.
Re:Abandoned: The human cost of neurotechnology failure by Jochim on Sunday December 18, 2022 @05:36AM (#34036455)
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?

Re:Abandoned: The human cost of neurotechnology failure by bee_rider on Sunday December 18, 2022 @03:02PM (#34042309)
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.

Re:Abandoned: The human cost of neurotechnology failure by Jochim on Monday December 19, 2022 @09:07AM (#34052158)
> 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

Re:Abandoned: The human cost of neurotechnology failure by JoeAltmaier on Monday December 19, 2022 @09:16AM (#34052258)
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.

Re:Abandoned: The human cost of neurotechnology failure by puchatek on Sunday December 18, 2022 @05:57AM (#34036548)
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.