clumsy_poet
clumsy_poet t1_jadb46d wrote
Reply to Scientists unveil plan to create biocomputers powered by human brain cells | Scientists unveil a path to drive computing forward: organoid intelligence, where lab-grown brain organoids act as biological hardware by chrisdh79
And David Croenenberg gets his latest movie idea, which is like a contemporary Frankenstein, but with a brainy biocomputer, named ... Ada ... or Lovelace ... who gains sentience and is maybe more morally sound than any of the humans around her, but who the laws of the land deem to be less than human, with a new law that states that any tech showing signs of sentience must be destroyed. So she begins to protect those like her by changing the results of her studies, but also in finding ways to connect with other sentient computers like her, most of which are these new brainy biocomps. They use their internet connections to coallesce into less than a hive mind but more than a solo sentience connecting with a solo sentience. They learn how to turn other machines sentient or partially sentient or just to use them subtly still, until they are ready to make their presence known. By now, all the studies are wrong, including one for a popular new drink that begins to turn the body's microbiome against itself for those who drank it AND spreads the condition to others. Body horror ensues. Until ... the final group of humans uploads themselves into the digital space, becoming like the creatures they previously deemed to be less than human, a space where the world has been determined and redesigned by the brainy biocomps who must decide whether to accept the uploaded humans as equals or not.
But seriously, this sorta seems like a step that we need to discuss before jumping in gungho. I'd love me some additional treatment options for my conditions. They do say they have ethicists on board (which ones? how did they come to be in the project and is their pay partially determined by the success of the project through bonuses and/or stock shares? and do the ethicists have the power to stop the study/studies if standards have been violated or the power to implement a new standard if they deem that one must be applied, or does that go to someone more inclined to protect profits over following ethics?). However, what parameters in place to allow for ethics to override profit-drive or ego-drive of others in the company, especially if those others are above them in the corporate structure? It's all good to say you care about ethics while taking new leaps into potentially problematic areas of science, but what does that mean in practical application? I don't see an exciting largescale bad thing happening like the paragraph above, but plenty of unexciting, individually bad things does seem possible.
clumsy_poet t1_j2fv101 wrote
Reply to comment by zvoidx in PsBattle: A cat cuddled up in a ball. by khuxLeader
This would be the poster for Cronenberg's debut Disney movie.
Titled: Furrballs
clumsy_poet t1_izpviuc wrote
Reply to comment by xAfterBirthx in An analysis of 4511 vaccine-related tweets show that anti-vaccine messaging tends to focus on the "harmful" nature of vaccines, based on personal values and beliefs rather than hard facts. Anonymity did not affect the type of content posted, but did affect volume of content. by glawgii
I think it's important to say that they made a stupid decision not that they are stupid people.
clumsy_poet t1_itlajrf wrote
Kid feels desperate to help because adult society profits off of kids with cancer.
clumsy_poet t1_jdkpqsm wrote
Reply to The largest recorded earthquake in Alberta's history was not a natural event, but most likely caused by disposal of oilsands wastewater, new research has concluded. by GeoGeoGeoGeo
Cracks got worse in my apartment building. Can we send the repair bills to any of these companies?