It would be nice to add a "right to private thought" to the Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as something similar to other countries' rights and freedoms laws wherever possible.
This is why I think we should treat or reframe laws as formal systems, akin to Lean / Metamath / etc... : treat it like a database of axioms / principles and theorems with proof.
As long as we don't we have to choose between explicit and repetitive or implicit but concise. The advantage of implicit but concise is that individual citizens can grasp larger sets of axioms & principles, but the we run the risk of having lawyers, judges etc. be confused, confusable, or feigning "innocent confusion" about the law and the spirit of the law. The advantage of explicit but repetitive is that its much harder to confuse if a party can point to a literal sentence stating exactly the situation in one place, but the law easily bulks up exponentially.
On the other hand using a formal system, you can clearly distinctly mark the axioms and normative postulates, and include example theorems ("yes a black citizen is also a citizen", "yes the gypsy is a human", etc...). Even when cases haven't been covered as explicit theorems, the formalized aspect means parties can derive unambiguously the sentences they need to shove in the face of a judge.
Technology like that would be incredibly valuable, which means it will be developed if it can be.
You might possibly convince decent democratic countries to not do it, but if you think China, Russia, etc, would hesitate to get hold of this power we don't live in the same universe.
Having proper sub-vocalization interfaces would be so cool! A 19-channel EEG does seem a bit invasive though (from a social aspect, I understand that it's used here in a medical context).
Subvocalization can be decoded from facial muscles.
MIT’s AlterEgo project does that. It’s been spun off into a private company (with no shipping product yet.) Discussed here, with 130 comments, 11 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45174125
I'm not interested in seeing this technology progress any further. The ability to read someone's inner, unspoken thoughts is too easy to weaponize against them.
I wonder whether a subject could poison the process by consciously thinking about something unrelated in the same way that public speakers used to get past stage-fright. As you look out across the audience picture something funny, like your boss in a pink tutu.
People who are unable to communicate physically - and their loved ones - probably feel differently.
Can you imagine the sheer horror of being stuck in your body and unable to communicate? Being literally incapable of telling someone that you're in pain or where it hurts, for every waking second? Or, knowing that the end is near, not being able to tell your children that you love them? Or that you're sorry for not being a better parent?
Our world is literally about to burst at its seams, and no one believes it. People are very concerned that AI is using water or might be a hoax — meanwhile, we’ve been hoisted into a brand new BCI paradigm seemingly overnight. Ditto for bipedal robotics.
Like… how can you be planning a 401k at a time where humanoid robots and *mind reading* are suddenly possible? We’re going to have to redesign our whole society if we want to survive.
As long as we don't we have to choose between explicit and repetitive or implicit but concise. The advantage of implicit but concise is that individual citizens can grasp larger sets of axioms & principles, but the we run the risk of having lawyers, judges etc. be confused, confusable, or feigning "innocent confusion" about the law and the spirit of the law. The advantage of explicit but repetitive is that its much harder to confuse if a party can point to a literal sentence stating exactly the situation in one place, but the law easily bulks up exponentially.
On the other hand using a formal system, you can clearly distinctly mark the axioms and normative postulates, and include example theorems ("yes a black citizen is also a citizen", "yes the gypsy is a human", etc...). Even when cases haven't been covered as explicit theorems, the formalized aspect means parties can derive unambiguously the sentences they need to shove in the face of a judge.
You might possibly convince decent democratic countries to not do it, but if you think China, Russia, etc, would hesitate to get hold of this power we don't live in the same universe.
MIT’s AlterEgo project does that. It’s been spun off into a private company (with no shipping product yet.) Discussed here, with 130 comments, 11 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45174125
I wonder whether a subject could poison the process by consciously thinking about something unrelated in the same way that public speakers used to get past stage-fright. As you look out across the audience picture something funny, like your boss in a pink tutu.
Can you imagine the sheer horror of being stuck in your body and unable to communicate? Being literally incapable of telling someone that you're in pain or where it hurts, for every waking second? Or, knowing that the end is near, not being able to tell your children that you love them? Or that you're sorry for not being a better parent?
May none of us ever need such technology.
Like… how can you be planning a 401k at a time where humanoid robots and *mind reading* are suddenly possible? We’re going to have to redesign our whole society if we want to survive.