castledoom.com

[TriBeCa]

Mind reading, more formally referred to as neural classification, is now possible in a very limited form, and will almost certainly have real-world applications (most obviously lie detection, but probably other areas as well) within our lifetimes.

I'm interested to know what people think about the ethics of being able to determine the contents of someone else's thoughts, particularly in cases where they may not have given full consent.


Some more background info is probably in order. This stuff requires the use of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine, which are by no means cheap, can not be moved around, and are generally only found in hospitals and specialized facilities. So there's currently no worry of having someone 'reading your mind' without your knowing about it. In the future it may be possible to use techniques like Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS), which is highly portable and much cheaper, but for the moment NIRS can't be used for this stuff.

MRI's are (among other things) able to detect small changes in blood flow in the brain, which occur in response to local changes in cellular function and reflect activity in the corresponding area of the brain. This is called functional MRI (fMRI), as it able to give a picture of changes in brain function over time.

This stuff has been possible for a couple of decades now, and there're huge amounts of work being done with it right now (this is what I do, actually...). What's changed recently, however, is that some people are now developing statistical models (using techniques known as neural network modelling and support vector machines, primarily) that are able to predict, from a single 'image' or 'volume' (basically a 3d-map of brain activity in a 1.5 or 2 second time interval), whether the person from whose brain the volume was collected was experiencing a particular mental state.

As I mentioned at the outset, this is still quite limited. So, one of the things that has been recently, is people were shown lines, one at a time, in one of 12 different orientations. After collecting enough data to 'train' the statistical model (that is, to teach it which patterns of data go with which orientation), it was then possible to predict almost perfectly what the orientation of the line was that the person was looking at. In another study, using a technique too cubersome to describe easily here, they were able to do something similar with purely internal conscious experience, seperate from any changes in the environment. Hence, mind reading is really real, now. This work is really only a couple of years old, and you can bet there's going to be a ton more of it in the time to come.

So, we will almost certainly see a day in the not-to-distant future where people accused of crimes may be being hauled in for lie detection that actually works, rather than polygraphs. It may also become possible to determine people's attitudes with neural classification. I'm speculating here, but what if your employer or government (whether in America or elsewhere...) was able to bring you in for an fMRI and determine your political beliefs, sexual preferences, religious beliefs, and so on? What if companies start doing their marketing research by directly accessing the effect their advertisements have on consumers' brains (ok they're already trying to do this, but what if it actually worked?

A particularly troubling thing is that MRIs are used relatively frequently for medical diagnoses (tumors and things). In the context of giving someone a clinical scan, it might some day be possible to collect other data as I've described above. In fact, it was pointed out in a recent review of this literature in the journal Nature Reviews: Neuroscience that it is certainly the cast that data that has already been collected likely contains information about that person that we never imagined it contained in the first place, and there is the possibility that it could be used for purposes to which the person did not consent....

I'd really like to know what people think about this.

[crispybacon]

I would say legally (at least in the US) you could weasel out of it under 5th Amendment rights, unless you give consent. Otherwise, so far this looks fairly easy to fool. Thinking of something else instead of what you are supposed to will most likely throw it off.

Morally, until this can be refined until certainty, this is a pointing finger that we cannot afford. False positives destroy lives.

And if the Man tries to hook me up to one of those things...lets just say I'll get some unique piercings if this ever reaches the market :twisted:
________
Michigan dispensary

[TriBeCa]

Piercings might not help, as they tend not to be ferrous. While they can generate some pretty serious data artifacts, it might not matter.

And maybe I should've mentioned that neural classifiers can determine something you've seen subliminally. That is, even though you are not consciously aware of having seen something that was shown to you (incredibly briefly), these models can actually tell what you've seen based on differences in your brain's response to the things you were shown. While this is not particularly useful in its own right, it demonstrates that, in principal, it is possible to learn something about non-conscious mental processes using neural classifiers.

And as for the 'just think of something else,' I suspect this won't work in most cases. For example, I'd wager a hefty sum that there are discernable differences in your brain's response to familiar and unfamiliar faces, which would make it trivial to determine whether someone recognizes someone else or not, regardless of what they were thinking about.

And yes, in the US it's probably the case that you couldn't be forced to submit to this, but in some parts of the world people don't have those protections. And even in the US, companies could require job candidates to go through this kind of thing, much as they are currently able to require aptitude tests, drug screening, and the like.

And yes, false positives can destroy lives. But the data I've seen so far, while for admittedly simple things, tend to have false positive rates under 10%, and I'm sure that can be improved upon.

[JuntaJoe]

I'd like it seen used as lie detectors are used today.

No employer may use it unless it concerns a violation of a national security clearance for a government contractor.

The state may use it for employment under the same above listed condition.

The state may use it on foriegn nationals and citizens in the case of suspected espionage.

The courts may use it as a prelimary consideration by prosecutors should the defense offer it up voluntarily in advance simply to encourage prosecutors and detectives to focus their energies elsewhere. This happens quite a bit when you have multiple unrelated suspects and the defense team wishes to get the state to drop prosecution early on. It should never be admissable actually in court based on 5th Ammendment rights and prosecutors/detectives should never actually encourage one to a suspect who is not with legal cousel actually present.

Damn! Don't you just love the foresight of our founding fathers? 8)

[ExarKun]

JuntaJoe wrote:
Damn! Don't you just love the foresight of our founding fathers? 8)

Liven under monarchy tyranny for enough years can make people think of the best ways to leave them and prevent it in the future. Thank God for them.

[Eddy]

I'm afraid of this because governments can and will use it for nefarious purposes, much like the law enforcement misuses people's words to get convictions. You just know it'll be some Patriot Act or War on (some) Drugs nonsense to justify it.

[crispybacon]

Quote: Piercings might not help, as they tend not to be ferrous. While they can generate some pretty serious data artifacts, it might not matter

Note: You CAN get ferrous piercings, or tatoos with enough metal content to either throw off the data or die from the injuries resulting.

Also, I'm not too worried about this. Aside from the protections given to us by our kickass genius Founding Fathers, the effect shouldnt be that much worse than say under interrogation with sodium pentathol or related drugs. The best solution, as always, is to A) know and more importantly know how to abuse your rights,
B) not do anything and/or C) never let them take you alive :twisted: [/quote]
________
NEW MEXICO MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

[JuntaJoe]

crispybacon wrote: A) know and more importantly know how to abuse your rights, B) not do anything and/or C) never let them take you alive :twisted:

Now there's a fine sig for you. :wink:

[crispybacon]

Done!

That fits my personality to a T
________
Mexico city hotel