It's Personal

By | February 18, 2005

Note: Stephen suggested that my comments
on his follow-up
to my entry about
Human Savants
would make for a good posting in their own right. What the
hey, who am I to disagree with Stephen?

I like the idea of being able to switch back and forth. There’s a scene in
Star
Trek: First Contact
where Data and Picard are about to face down the Borg
for the first time. Data begins to observe his emotions and realizes that he’s
terrified. So he announces that he’s going to "turn off his emotion chip."
Picard tells Data that he envies him sometimes.

The good side of being able to switch back and forth between normal social
interaction and enhanced — or maybe it’s better to say modified — modes of
mental operation is that we would be more functional in some areas and we woldn’t
be distracted by things that normally get in the way.

I wrote a while back that being able to get "in the zone" like that
could prove helpful to sales people. A sales rep who can bump up her ability
to speak and to think on her feet, and tone down her fear of rejection, is going
to have a substantial advantage over the competition. The downside, of course,
is that it could also prove quite helpful to criminals and/or government officials.
How much easier it would be to commit appalling acts of violence if you can
just switch off your capacity to be appalled. Or maybe closer to the lives of
everyday people — think how much easier it would be to dump somebody.

Yikes.

  • ChrisMcDirty

    In Richard Morgan’s Kovacs’s series (Altered Carbon & Broken Angels) he presents a person who can switch gears into a mental state unfettered by normal human prohibitions against violence, and the result is pretty scary. He mentions that people who have this ability are prohibitied from being politicians because of this ability. I think that there will try to be laws which try to regulate what kinds of alterations are allowed, which will be ignored by the kinds of folks who would be the targets of said laws…

  • Karl Hallowell

    One possible rule is that if the program or organism can grow naturally into an intelligent being then it should be permitted to. A human zygote outside a womb (natural or otherwise) isn’t going to naturally become a child. Neither is a very powerful computer in itself. But why shouldn’t we place precautionary inhibitions in a computer system to prevent the occurance of intelligence?

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    Chris –

    I think that all such treatments may be banned. (Or at least there will those who argue that they should be.) If some are allowed, I think we may find oursleves living in a much more agressive society even than we currently do. People will have boosted their confidence and eliminated their inhibitions, with many positive results and a few kind of scary ones.

    Karl –

    Based on your caveat about placing precautionary inhibitions in place, and your critique elsewhere about Anissimov’s suggestion that we just let robots develop, are you in fact suggesting that there should be one standard for human intelligence and a different one for non-human intelligence? Just clarifying.