alt Hacker NewsI will state plainly that I do not think you are asking this maliciously, and that instead you are asking from curiosity. From that perspective, though, I am a bit flabbergasted.
Are you truly curious as to how it might not be A Good Thing that those engaging in high-finance capitalistic money making programs would have access to forcefully engaging a human being's brain into activity, with or without their consent, to such an extent as to drive motivations and bias neuronal activation that leads to what they think is a choice?
Said another way: Are you really curious as to how allowing a company additional tools to bias human interactions may not be A Good Thing?
If you need an example as to how this is clearly not A Good Thing, and that at least a portion of the world population agrees with that characteristic, that there are currently companies that have tried to actively do this already, and attempts are being made at least to fine them for their behavior as an attempt to curb it. Whether or not it succeeds is a question of governance at the moment since the US is currently under plutocratic control.
However, I would really urge you to explore this topic and really engage with what's happening due to the plutocratic class' capabilities over technologic change and societally enforced or biased adoption, and how they, in many extreme cases that are continuing to become more extreme, are not A Good Thing.
Simplest, most readily available example: https://ground.news/article/meta-says-us-states-are-seeking-...
Replies
You just reminded me why I unsubscribed from ground news: you can't share a link without them adding their own paywall to it, even if it's a free article. Fuck that
> Are you truly curious as to how it might not be A Good Thing that those engaging in high-finance capitalistic money making programs would have access to forcefully engaging a human being's brain into activity, with or without their consent, to such an extent as to drive motivations and bias neuronal activation that leads to what they think is a choice?
I guess I just don't think this is the topic at hand. What you're proposing is mind control. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is scientifically optimized superstimuli that can predictably activate certain brain regions. So when I read "rowhammer" I'm thinking about it in this context, the ability of a video to consistently activate a targeted section of your brain.
As you should know, and IIRC, cognition does not cleanly or consistently map geographically in the brain. To go from the ability to activate a subset of brain regions to influencing behavior is not a neglible step. The only real potential I imagine is in emotional activation, which is fairly well-localized.
So really what we're talking about is being able to evoke ideas and feelings with more consistency and precision than before. This doesn't seem new. And it can't be that intense either—I have the sense that your hypothetical mind control video would be extremely annoying or unpleasant before becoming influential. And for now we have the freedom to choose what we watch and turn the video off.
And it might be reasonable to say that you were referring to future possibilities, and that I'm focusing too much on what's currently available. But I am not just reacting to the first quoted clause of parent, but to their [vomits] policy recommendations. "This sort of thing", if not heavily controlled, etc. Maybe you see no value in this research, maybe there isn't any. Nonetheless the paranoid and the scifi-as-nonfiction readers will throw up the Bat signal for the idiots and moral panic orchestrators in power to wrap us all in comforting red tape for our own good.
I exaggerate. And I am talking about many more things than you were, as if the volume of text strengthens any rebuttal. All I'm saying is, this tech has little power over human behavior, in my opinion, and we should be cautious before bringing the hammer down before we know if we've got a bumblebee or a wasp.