Google Cars--for your body

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Google is working on self-driven cars with an AI that can anticipate and avoid collisions. In theory, such a system could almost completely eliminate vehicle accidents. (Let's not discuss whether it's practical, let's stick to the theory).

A science fiction trope is that someday, we'll be able to have AIs that jack straight into our brains.

Although someone may well have written a story around it, however, I've never seen this idea: an AI that works a little bit like Google Cars. That is, it jacks straight into your brain, watches for and anticipates accidents, and momentarily takes over your body to avoid the accident. It twitches your finger out of the way of the knife you're cutting carrots with; it raises your foot a little higher so you don't trip over the rock; it makes you duck to avoid the stray baseball coming at your head.

Would you want this AI for yourself? Would you want it for your children?

[tdn]

My initial thought was no way, but when I get older it might come in handy.

[John DiFool]

I'm very old-fashioned: unlike the other goofballs who yak on their cellphones and hog the left lane and run right turns on red without even making the pretense of slowing down, I actually know what I am doing behind the wheel. Plus I'm sure there will be bugs-what happens if the system crashes while everyone is literally bumper to bumper at 60 MPH? Murphy's Law will strike with a vengeance.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

Plus I'm sure there will be bugs-what happens if the system crashes while everyone is literally bumper to bumper at 60 MPH?

That wasn't the question.

[Oakminster]

I'll pass, thanks.

(unmistakable sound of a 12-gauge pump action shotgun working a live round into chamber)

I said I'll pass.

I'm a man, not a robot. I will live and die as a man. Not a robot.

As the poll has no option for violent resistance if need be, I am unable to vote.

[ZipperJJ]

Nah. I'd be more willing to get the baseball that slows down as it approaches muscle tissue not covered in leather, or the knife that knows the difference between a carrot and a finger, and hover-shoes

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Wow, I'm surprised--I thought it'd be a more popular option. Is it just the creepiness? If the system were well-tested and shown to dramatically increase injury or death, would that change folks' minds?

[Oakminster]

It would pretty much destroy free will, which is a good chunk of that whole "being human" thing.

[levdrakon]

I'd do it, but my fear is that people would get used to not being able to hurt themselves, and a useful part of the brain would atrophy.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

What if it was just like reflexes--that is, you could consciously overpower it, as you can do with many reflexes, but it kicked in otherwise?

I also really don't see how it would destroy free will, unless you're imagining its function as vastly larger than what I posted.

[Oakminster]

None for me, thanks.

[levdrakon]

I think what I'd like is an AI companion/symbiote that could warn me about things that are more dangerous than I seem to be aware, rather than taking over automatically. It'd be nice if, when rendered unconscious due to accident or something, the AI could animate the body enough to get you out of harms way. It could maybe even trigger adrenaline and whatever other natural chemicals which could temporarily turn you into a super soldier type, hyped up no pain kind of thing.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Google is working on self-driven cars with an AI that can anticipate and avoid collisions. In theory, such a system could almost completely eliminate vehicle accidents. (Let's not discuss whether it's practical, let's stick to the theory).

A science fiction trope is that someday, we'll be able to have AIs that jack straight into our brains.

Although someone may well have written a story around it, however, I've never seen this idea: an AI that works a little bit like Google Cars. That is, it jacks straight into your brain, watches for and anticipates accidents, and momentarily takes over your body to avoid the accident. It twitches your finger out of the way of the knife you're cutting carrots with; it raises your foot a little higher so you don't trip over the rock; it makes you duck to avoid the stray baseball coming at your head.

Would you want this AI for yourself? Would you want it for your children?

Things atrophy if they're not used, including the brain. If I get used to automatic perfect balance I'll stop using my own natural and flawed sense of balance. Maybe it's sentimentalism, but I'd like to keep as many human bits as possible. The flaws are the things I define myself by overcoming.

[TexasDriver]

Why is this so children centric?

I wouldn't want it until it is proven safe for say, 50 years. Oops. I hope to be dead by then.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by TexasDriver

Why is this so children centric?

I wouldn't want it until it is proven safe for say, 50 years. Oops. I hope to be dead by then.

Interestingly, nobody's voted for the most child-centric option. I put it that way because we regularly impose restrictions on children for their own safety, and because children have so little common sense. If you could prevent your toddler from running out into traffic, or from falling out of a tree and breaking her arm, or from grabbing the pot of boiling water from the stove, it would be tempting.

[dawson]

I voted not for myself/ yes for my children.
The parent in me wants whatever would keep my children out of harms way, as any parent can relate to and is perfectly natural.
This is just a theory however-
The cynic in me says that it's a slippery slope to the destruction of our race. If you believe in Darwinism, then this would eventually remove the need for genetic diversification due to enviromental adaptation. Given that it would be a man made product and, and therefore flawed and inherently susceptible to failure, something would eventually come along that it could not protect us against and it would wipe out the whole herd.

[Der Trihs]

As long as it was designed to be capable of being overridden in case of emergencies like a natural reflex I'd go for it. If available I'd go for the more deluxe version I've seen in various sci-fi, where the computer can perform complex pre-programmed tasks.

Originally Posted by Oakminster

I'm a man, not a robot. I will live and die as a man. Not a robot.

Too late, since by that standard you already are a robot. Most of what you do every day is controlled by reflexes and unconscious processes. Ultimately, we are just talking about an upgrade to the robot that already runs most of your life for you.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by dawson

The cynic in me says that it's a slippery slope to the destruction of our race. If you believe in Darwinism, then this would eventually remove the need for genetic diversification due to enviromental adaptation. Given that it would be a man made product and, and therefore flawed and inherently susceptible to failure, something would eventually come along that it could not protect us against and it would wipe out the whole herd.

Wouldn't this same argument work against vaccines?

[dawson]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Wouldn't this same argument work against vaccines?

True enough, however if everyone voted yes then your solution would be universal (everyone) and all encompassing (every conceivable malady or ill fortune). Vaccines are neither, giving maladies a vehicle for encouraging genetic modification and natural selection.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by dawson

The cynic in me says that it's a slippery slope to the destruction of our race. If you believe in Darwinism, then this would eventually remove the need for genetic diversification due to enviromental adaptation. Given that it would be a man made product and, and therefore flawed and inherently susceptible to failure, something would eventually come along that it could not protect us against and it would wipe out the whole herd.

First, our own inborn reflexes (and biology in general) are more flawed; you seem to be presuming that natural = perfect. Evolution is sloppy, amoral and has no foresight; it too produces products that are "flawed and inherently susceptible to failure".

Second, it doesn't matter because human evolution works at such a slow pace that any particular technology is going to be outmoded and gone before it can affect our genome. Anything that changes as fast as technology is going to just be random noise in the natural selection process for humans.

And third, we'll be able to fix any such mistakes with genetic engineering even if they did somehow appear; and with the same and other technologies we'll almost certainly either engineer ourselves into something quite different than we are now or our civilization will fall.

So; bottom line is that it wouldn't happen, and wouldn't matter if it did.

[dawson]

Assuming that a technology as incredible as this would persist over generations, would it not at the very least, dull the fight or flight instinct by essentially reducing it to redundancy?

[Stanislaus]

You're offering an upgrade to my nervous system? Sign me up. I don't know why anyone would turn down Spidersense.

[kanicbird]

...

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by dawson

Assuming that a technology as incredible as this would persist over generations, would it not at the very least, dull the fight or flight instinct by essentially reducing it to redundancy?

As I said, there's no way the situation would stay the same long enough for evolution to make a difference. And if it somehow did, we'd just use genetic engineering to sharpen the flight-or-flight instinct right up again. Or just replace it with an AI function too, assuming we hadn't already done so.

Basically, you are worrying about the long term evolutionary effects of buggy whips on carriage drivers. The answer being, there is no long term for them.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

As long as it was designed to be capable of being overridden in case of emergencies like a natural reflex I'd go for it. If available I'd go for the more deluxe version I've seen in various sci-fi, where the computer can perform complex pre-programmed tasks.

This is my answer, although with perhaps a little more enthusiasm. I'd be all over that (like white on rice). I understand that this wouldn't be precisely accommodated by the OP's Google Body scenario, but one day last week the bus took an alternate route past my stop; I was dropped off in an unfamiliar area and have a horrible sense of direction. Without my phone providing GPS and a compass, I'd've been lost (in the rain!). How much cooler would it have been for all of that to be in my brain?

The time a car pulled out of a parking lot and rain into me (while riding a bike)—the driver's new reflexes would've stopped her before she had time to process that I was there. No more absent-mindedly touching really hot plates and dishes, or slipping on wet shoes while walking on linoleum. Years ago I worked at DHL; not too long before I started a night worker walked into a propeller (!), a pretty gruesome accident that this sort of technology would prevent.

Heck, surely you could rig this thing to help with less dangerous accidents, such as leaving wallets or purses in a restaurant booth. Sign me up.

Originally Posted by Oakminster

As the poll has no option for violent resistance if need be, I am unable to vote.

I uh er what? Where in the OP's scenario was it put forth that this would be some mandatory thing against which "violent resistance" would be necessary? How exactly is your opinion not copacetic with "I don't want it for myself or for my children"? Unless I suppose you're implying that you would join an armed uprising against the mere existence of this kind of technology.

[Ravenman]

For all the threads on this board complaining about laptops loaded with spyware, hidden DRM on music, teh Internets tracking what web pages people are looking at, I'm surprised so few people are totally not interested in a technology that would quite literally be capable of overriding one's brain.

I am more concerned about unnecessary monkeying with my brain. Just like I don't think men should take prescription drugs if they are healthy and don't actually have a problem that needs to be addressed (whether it is antibiotics or Viagra), I don't think a person ought to submit their motor functions to a computer unless there is some health-related issue that needs to be addressed.

If such a computer would help disabled people, I'm all for it. But people shouldn't monkey with the most basic functions of their biology without damn good reason for it.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

For all the threads on this board complaining about laptops loaded with spyware, hidden DRM on music, teh Internets tracking what web pages people are looking at, I'm surprised so few people are totally not interested in a technology that would quite literally be capable of overriding one's brain.

Definitely my greatest fear would be spyware or bugs. I deliberately didn't address that in the OP because I wanted there to be some room for controversy in the poll; I didn't figure people would object to it even without the possibility of hacks/bugs.

No way I'd do it if there were the significant potential for hacks. Bugs I might accept, depending on their severity; basically, if they weren't worse than the bugs in my nervous system that they fixed, I'd be okay with it.

I have no trouble getting rid of a fight-or-flight reflex if it's no longer necessary, any more than I had trouble getting rid of my wisdom teeth. I don't oppose dental hygiene because it makes those spare teeth superfluous.

If such a computer would help disabled people, I'm all for it. But people shouldn't monkey with the most basic functions of their biology without damn good reason for it.

The "damn good reason" would be "avoiding lethal or debilitating accidents." It's hard for me to imagine a better reason.

[steronz]

I voted yes, but I want to caveat that I'd want control over the sensitivity. Prevent me from dying or losing a limb, yes. Don't prevent me from scraping a knee.

How it could tell the difference, I have no idea. I fear becoming dependent on this thing to keep from being a total klutz. However, I'd hate to be lying on the ground bleeding to death in front of my kids and feel that dreaded "should've gotten the GBodyAI" feeling.

[Hypno-Toad]

Such technology could certainly help soldiers in combat. Being able to snap-shoot much more quickly and accurately or being able to more quickly identify the source of hostile fire could give a man a real edge in a fire fight.

But I would prefer something that would assist me, not control me. Like if the program simulated the results of years of combat training and experience rather than simply automatically moving my body.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

The "damn good reason" would be "avoiding lethal or debilitating accidents." It's hard for me to imagine a better reason.

We could avoid a lot of accidents if we wore helmets everywhere we went. But we don't. A connection to one's brain is so much more intrusive than a helmet that it isn't even funny, and helmets aren't known to monkey with one's biology (other than being the second leading cause of hathead syndrome).

It just doesn't make sense to me that someone would be more willing to have their brain partially controlled by a computer than put on a helmet for everyday life.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

We could avoid a lot of accidents if we wore helmets everywhere we went. But we don't. A connection to one's brain is so much more intrusive than a helmet that it isn't even funny

What? No it isn't. A helmet is something you're aware of every second you wear it: you constantly feel its weight, for example, and it may intrude on your field of vision. Your head gets sweaty and gross if you wear it too long.

This proposed technology would be something you were aware of in the instant it protected you only, and otherwise it would be completely in the background.

[Rachellelogram]

My major objection would be if it interfered with a person who voluntarily chose to cut themselves. If it doesn't, then maybe.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

My major objection would be if it interfered with a person who voluntarily chose to cut themselves. If it doesn't, then maybe.

Let's say it's overrideable in the same way that your current reflexes can be overridden.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

What? No it isn't. A helmet is something you're aware of every second you wear it: you constantly feel its weight, for example, and it may intrude on your field of vision. Your head gets sweaty and gross if you wear it too long.

This proposed technology would be something you were aware of in the instant it protected you only, and otherwise it would be completely in the background.

I find it difficult to argue about the intricacies of how small or large magical technologies would have to be, how much power they would consume, or what colors they are available in; I'm referring to the general principle that devices that would control one's brain and nervous system are "more intrusive" than a hat.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I'm referring to the general principle that devices that would control one's brain and nervous system are "more intrusive" than a hat.

In what manner? For purposes of this scenario, we appear to be imagining a device for which a user would be indistinguishable from a non-user; there would be no apparent apparatus or energy cost to use. If it worked properly—which we seem to be assuming—then the only result would be avoidance of injury. So in what precise way would this technology be intrusive?

I can see how worry about the device being tampered with or hacked would be an issue, but it doesn't sound terribly intrusive to me.

[dawson]

So essentailly were talking about artificial instincts?

[Blaster Master]

Absolutely not. As others have mentioned, it's replacing a part of the brain. As such, it's hard to know what kind of impact it might have other other aspects. Perhaps our laziness in responding to dangerous stimuli will also affect our responses to less dangerous stimuli, like basic hand-eye coordination.

Also, I'm unsure about exactly how well it works. Sure, if we're just lazy, we may hurt ourselves, but I think a lot of these sorts of situations, if not a majority of them, aren't from laziness, but from a simple lack of information. That is, when I trip, it's usually not because I didn't lift my foot up high enough, but because I just didn't see it. If I don't see it, how can any system adjust to compensate for it? The information simply isn't there to be processed.

Most worrisome to me is that this sort of technology introduces a lot of dangerous areas morally. That is, if a system can temporarily override our own actions, it leads into some areas like openning ourselves up to complete body and/or mind control. As such, if it did exist, I'd be much more comfortable if it acted more as some kind of alert system rather than directly overriding our actions.