Talk:Neurotech governance

From Wise Nano

Neurotech pros/cons  by Cdnprodigy 15:11, 14 Jun 2005 (CDT)

Neurotech governance is an original idea. Properly implemented, it seems to be a functional MM administrative structure. It reminds me of Halperin's "Truth Machine", only to a stronger degree. But there are some drawbacks... 1) It is likely to require a lot of neuro-sciences R + D, so the earlier MM occurs, the longer it will take after MM to develop it. This renders it useless for the very earliest and most critical stages post-MM. 2) It is likely to require many neuro-sciences personnel to develop. Depending on the #, the odds one of these persons might spill the secret pre-MM, when global communications are likely to be ubiquitous, might outweigh the benefits. 3) Initially, the governance will be vulnerable to compromise by surgeons and or MM administrators. This is not a special problem with Neurotech though, it is a problem with all proposed administrative structures. 4) The Frankenstein factor might turn away sqeamish personnel would might otherwise be of great utility. 5) Side effects of implementation might include schizophrenia, turning people evil, or death. Implementation might do more harm than good and there is no safe way to test this on people (it does not seem like the kind of thing that could be computer-modelled).

I think if MM could breed some truly radical meta-technologies. The safe administration of these will require something like neurotech or FAI. Neurotech might be safer than hoping an AGI is FAI, I'm not sure. But Neurotech seems to me like something that is feasible after MM has been stably implemented; the next step for MM enabled technology research programmes.