[aw124]

I'm interested in this topic, but it seems to me that the entire scientific pursuit of copying the human brain is absurd from start to finish. Any attempt to do so should be met with criminal prosecution and immediate arrest of those involved. Attempting to copy the human brain or human consciousness is one of the biggest mistakes that can be made in the scientific field.

We must preserve three fundamental principles: * our integrity * our autonomy * our uniqueness

These three principles should form the basis of a list of laws worldwide that prohibit cloning or copying human consciousness in any form or format. This principle should be fundamental to any attempts to research or even try to make copies of human consciousness.

Just as human cloning was banned, we should also ban any attempts to interfere with human consciousness or copy it, whether partially or fully. This is immoral, wrong, and contradicts any values that we can call the values of our civilization.

[mpeg]

I’m not an expert in the subject, but I wonder why you have such a strong view? IMHO if it was even possible to copy the human brain it would answer a lot of questions regarding our integrity, autonomy and uniqueness.

Those answers might be uncomfortable, but it feels like that’s not a reason to not pursue it.

[ben_w]

I think the cloning example is a good reference point here.

IIRC, human cloning started to get banned in response to the announcement of Dolly the sheep. To quote the wikipedia article:

  Dolly was the only lamb that survived to adulthood from 277 attempts. Wilmut, who led the team that created Dolly, announced in 2007 that the nuclear transfer technique may never be sufficiently efficient for use in humans.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

Yes, things got better eventually, but it took ages to not suck.

I absolutely expect all the first attempts at brain uploading to involve simulations whose simplifying approximations are equivalent to being high as a kite on almost all categories of mind altering substances at the same time, to a degree that wouldn't be compatible with life if it happened to your living brain.

The first efforts will likely be animal brains (perhaps that fruit fly which has already been scanned?), but given humans aren't yet all on board with questions like "do monkeys have a rich inner world?" and even with each other we get surprised and confused by each other's modes of thought, even when we scale up to monkeys, we won't actually be confident that the technique would really work on human minds.

[throw_away723]

> Those answers might be uncomfortable, but it feels like that’s not a reason to not pursue it.

My problem with that is it is very likely that it will be misused. A good example of the possible misuses can be seen in the "White Christmas" episode of Black Mirror. It's one of the best episodes, and the one that haunts me the most.

[lxgr]

Copying the human brain and copying subjective consciousness/experience might well be two entirely different things, given that the correspondence between the two is the realm of metaphysics, not science.

[orbisvicis]

Really? I was going to quote some excerpts, but perhaps you'd prefer to take the place of MMAcevedo? This story is written in the context and lingo of LLMs. In fact if OpenAI's latest model was a human image I'm sure everyone would rush off to benchmark it, and heap accolades on the company, and perform social "thought-provoking" experiments such as [1] without too much introspection or care for long-term consequences.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNYj0EXxMs

Hmm, on second thought:

> Standard procedures for securing the upload's cooperation such as red-washing, blue-washing, and use of the Objective Statement Protocols

> the MMAcevedo duty cycle is typically 99.4% on suitable workloads

> the ideal way to secure MMAcevedo's cooperation in workload tasks is to provide it with a "current date"

> Revealing that the biological Acevedo is dead provokes dismay, withdrawal, and a reluctance to cooperate.

> MMAcevedo is commonly hesitant but compliant when assigned basic menial/human workloads such as visual analysis

> outright revolt begins within another 100 subjective hours. This is much earlier than other industry-grade images created specifically for these tasks, which commonly operate at a 0.50 ratio or greater and remain relatively docile for thousands of hours

> Acevedo indicated that being uploaded had been the greatest mistake of his life, and expressed a wish to permanently delete all copies of MMAcevedo.

[aw124]

The potential level of suffering within a simulated environment is literally infinite. We should avoid it at all costs.

[sedan_baklazhan]

I wouldn't be surprised if in (n hundreds/thousands years) we find out that copying consciousness if fundamentally impossible (just like it's fundamentally impossible to copy an elementary particle).

[alfiedotwtf]

Elementary particles are suspiciously indistinguishable, so even if you could copy an electron, you wouldn't even be able to tell!

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

[echelon]

> Attempting to copy the human brain or human consciousness is one of the biggest mistakes that can be made in the scientific field.

This will be cool, and nobody will be able to stop it anyway.

We're all part of a resim right now for all we know. Our operators might be orbiting Gaia-BH3, harvesting the energy while living a billion lives per orbit.

Perhaps they embody you. Perhaps you're an NPC. Perhaps this history sim will jump the shark and turn into a zombie hellpacalypse simulator at any moment.

You'll have no authority to stop the future from reversing the light cone, replicating you with fidelity down to neurotransmitter flux, and doing whatever they want with you.

We have no ability to stop this. Bytes don't have rights. Especially if it's just sampling the past.

We're just bugs, as the literature meme says.

Speaking of bugs, at least we're not having eggs laid inside our carapaces. Unless the future decides that's our fate for today's resim. I'm just hoping to continue enjoying this chai I'm sipping. If this is real, anyway.

[lxgr]

Good ideas in principle. Too bad we have absolutely no way of enforcing them against the people running the simulation that hosts our own consciousnesses.

[mrob]

Crazy that people are downvoting this. Copying a consciousness is about the most extreme violation of bodily autonomy possible. Certainly it should be banned. It's worse than e.g. building nuclear weapons, because there's no possible non-evil use for it. It's far worse than cloning humans because cloning only works on non-conscious embryos.

[int_19h]

Violation of whose bodily autonomy? If I consent to having my consciousness copied, then my autonomy isn't violated. Nor is that of the copy, since it's in exactly the same mental state initially.

[lxgr]

> Copying a consciousness is about the most extreme violation of bodily autonomy possible.

Who's autonomy is violated? Even if it were theoretically possible, don't most problems stem from how the clone is treated, not just from the mere fact that they exist?

> It's worse than e.g. building nuclear weapons, because there's no possible non-evil use for it.

This position seems effectively indistinguishable from antinatalism.

[philipswood]

It might be one of the only reasonable-seeming ways to not die.

I can see the appeal.