The technology itself is absolutely incredible. The potential for people who have lost the ability to speak, for instance those with locked-in syndrome, is a monumental leap forward and a huge humanitarian win.
But on the other hand, this feels like we're crossing a major ethical boundary into "pre-crime" or thought-policing territory. We've always taken for granted that our thoughts are the one truly private place. If a non-invasive scanner can pull the "gist" of your thoughts, even if it's imperfect now, what does this look like in 10 years?
What kind of legal or societal safeguards are even possible to prevent the misuse of this? This seems like a technology where we need to have the ethical conversation before it's perfected, not after.
karlperera•7mo ago
But on the other hand, this feels like we're crossing a major ethical boundary into "pre-crime" or thought-policing territory. We've always taken for granted that our thoughts are the one truly private place. If a non-invasive scanner can pull the "gist" of your thoughts, even if it's imperfect now, what does this look like in 10 years?
What kind of legal or societal safeguards are even possible to prevent the misuse of this? This seems like a technology where we need to have the ethical conversation before it's perfected, not after.