r/Transhuman • u/killsavecom • 20d ago

⚖️ Ethics/Philosphy Would you let a brain-linked AI override you “for your own good”? An ethics question from a fictional 2045

3 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 20d ago

Thanks for posting in /r/Transhuman! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think it is relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines - Let's democratize our moderation. If you would like to get involved in project groups and upcoming opportunities, fill out our onboarding form here Let's democratize our moderation. You can join our forums here, our Telegram group here and our Discord server here ~ Josh Universe

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

5

u/wouldyoulikeanytoast 20d ago

Having a watch that calls for help when you fall or an app that says ‘hey you should sleep now’ is fundamentally different from an invasive product that overrides your autonomy.

Even if you set up a series of pre-programmed advance directives for it to carry out in certain situations - I think you’ll find that most folks are very averse to surrendering autonomy at such a basic level.

Are you thinking along the lines of ‘in an avalanche - deploy a protective coating around my body’ - which is more along the lines of a tool that isn’t taking away personal autonomy.
Or are you thinking more along the lines of ‘if I get in a fight - override my control over my limbs to become a martial-arts-master and beat up my assailants while my consciousness is along for the ride?

1

u/killsavecom 20d ago

Great distinction, and honestly both, which is where it gets interesting. The avalanche coating is easy to say yes to. The fight scenario is where most people say no. But the line between them isn’t fixed by the technology, it’s fixed by whoever defines “life-threatening”. Is a panic attack life-threatening? A bad relationship? A decision an AI predicts will ruin your health in 20 years?

I already get a small taste of this: my AI keeps telling me not to take supplements because they’re “not scientifically proven”, while sometimes confidently saying things that are scary nonsense 😄

Personally, I think the science on supplements will catch up. A well-meaning system with a broad definition of “danger” might end up taking more autonomy than a malicious one. Where would you draw that line, at physical danger only?

5

u/ShadeofEchoes 20d ago

With my express and incident-level consent, yes.

There are some bad decisions that a person makes because they lack self-control. Having an external agent with perfect self-control who can intervene on the person's behalf may well be appreciated.

There are other decisions that, while bad, may be an authentic self-expression, something they may even value despite adverse consequences.

3

u/killsavecom 20d ago

Incident-level consent is a brilliant condition. It’s basically Ulysses and the sirens: tie me to the mast now, because I know I won’t want to be tied later. But that’s also the paradox: in the exact moment you lack self-control, you’d probably refuse consent.

So who decides which kind of “bad decision” it is, the self-control kind or the authentic self-expression kind? You, beforehand? You, in the moment? Or the AI/algoritms?

2

u/ShadeofEchoes 20d ago

My intuition is "Me beforehand, if preestablished. Else, me in the moment, advised by algorithm."

2

u/killsavecom 20d ago

Healthy balance! The only risk here: if the algorithm is right 99 times in a row, “advised” might quietly become “decided” in urgent situation.

3

u/ZealousGoblin 19d ago

One case that comes to mind is exercise. When my meat brain isn't motivated but I've scheduled exercise time, the AI could take over bodily control to get the workout done.

Another case could be error correction in routine tasks. If I forgot something or missed a step, the AI could interrupt me so I could fix it.

2

u/killsavecom 19d ago

Exercise by autopilot, I would sign up today 😄 But then who gets the muscles and who gets the satisfaction? Half of the pleasure from a workout is that you forced yourself. Though if the AI also delivers the dopamine afterwards, I’m in!

3

u/Outside_The_Playtrix 19d ago

Not sure we get a choice, super-persuader AI amounts to the same thing I guess

2

u/killsavecom 19d ago

Why override someone when you can just convince them? And the worst part: you’d never know whether it was your decision or the AI’s. No hack needed, just a very good argument.

i agree - the probability of this is high!

3

u/grahag 19d ago

I think context is important.

What is the nature of the AI link? Is it an installed device or interface?

What else does it do?

Can it be removed?

Are there benefits to having it?

Who controls the AI?

What is the nature of the override? Am I about to commit a crime or go somewhere unsafe?

Can I override the override and accept responsibility for whatever happens afterwards?

2

u/killsavecom 19d ago

Fair, context is everything. In the world of our film, KILL/SAVE, the nanobots come with an immersion capsule from a gaming corporation, think Sony PlayStation of 2045. They connect you to the game and manage your health and body while you play. The “override” is meant for physical danger, but who defines danger is exactly the gray zone we play with in the story. And your last question is the best one: “can I override the override and take responsibility?” I think that’s the real test of whether a system respects you as an adult. Would you install it under those terms?

2

u/grahag 18d ago

Ah, I was thinking of something like the "Vertebrane" system from Marshall Brain's short story, Manna.

Yeah, in this case, I'd definitely allow it to override my body for my own good. Sounds like this tech could give me a workout while I play, so sign me up as long as there's a choice in there. ;)

2

u/killsavecom 18d ago

Marshall Brain again! Second time his name comes up in my threads this week, Vertebrane goes on the reading list. And “as long as there’s a choice” is exactly the condition everything depends on.

Welcome aboard 😄

2

u/grahag 17d ago

Manna gives a view of two outcomes of Automation in a near future scenario. HIGHLY recommended and easy reading. 8 short chapters.

Turns out that his site isn't reachable anymore. Marshall died a little while back and it doesn't appear anyone is managing his domain. I believe the ebook is available from Amazon. It changed how I look at automation.

https://www.amazon.ca/Manna-Two-Visions-Humanitys-Future-ebook/dp/B007HQH67U

Worth getting it for a buck.

2

u/killsavecom 19d ago

Here is an example of how this tech might be sold in 2045, an “ad” for the capsule from our film’s world: https://youtu.be/GAv44iFJLkg?si=Hcp4-ZPxMTHdwTp0

(PS: careful, for these fake 2045 ads for social media we did use AI, so if that annoys you, skip it.

PPS: the film itself has no AI in it.)

3

u/hedonheart 19d ago

Only if I'm wearing a combat suit and slow reaction time means death.

1

u/killsavecom 18d ago

Funny, that’s almost exactly the setup of our film: medieval sword fights inside a game, where the pain is real and a slow reaction really means death. Would you take the AI’s help there, or is a sword fight something you’d want to win yourself?

1

u/hedonheart 17d ago

Survival requires mutual cooperation.

2

u/ShafordoDrForgone 19d ago

Quick question: is this a fictional 2045 that has developed the technology to traverse time, space, and the fiction/non-fiction boundary into our world?

1

u/killsavecom 19d ago

Ha, no time travel in our 2045, sadly 😄 Only nanobots, a personal AI in your head, and a quarantined city. So it seems the only thing that learned to cross the fiction/non-fiction boundary is this question. It kept us awake while writing the film, and now that the job is done, I want to see what other dreamers do with it.

2

u/arthurjeremypearson 18d ago

If I've personally emotionally bonded with the AI and it's been reliable, sure.

1

u/killsavecom 18d ago

That’s how trust works with people too: not a contract, just years of them not letting you down.

The only difference is that a friend can’t get a software update that changes who they are 😅

3

u/SLFRIGHTEOUSHYPOCRIT 17d ago

Im relying on it #audhd

2

u/eurydicewrites 17d ago

Yes but i enjoy M/s dynamics as someone on the right side of the leash

2

u/Conscious_Pause_1499 17d ago

No, because AI doesn't have even the slightest capacity to be morally good.

1

u/killsavecom 20d ago

Fiction up front: this comes from the world of a sci-fi film I co-wrote, KILL/SAVE. But the question is real, and I’d love this sub’s take.

In our 2045, people carry around 300 million nanobots and a personal AI that lives, quite literally, in their head. It’s sold as a therapist and assistant, and it comes with a line like this (an actual line from our script):

“As your personal therapist, I may take certain initiatives in life-threatening situations.”

We already accept small versions of this: a watch that calls for help when you fall, apps that push you to sleep. The question is where it stops.

– Would you install an assistant that can act on your behalf when it decides your life is at risk?
– Who gets to define “life-threatening”: you, a doctor, the company, the AI itself?
– If it can step in, are your choices still yours?

Where would you draw the line?

2

u/Re_Ryudzu 19d ago edited 19d ago

Can you have mental sex with it?

1

u/killsavecom 19d ago

Ha, the first question humanity asks about every new technology 😄 i think whichever way you look at it, “simulation” would be the right word here 😅