[ajb]

An anecdote, but some reason to think that overworking part of your brain is a bad idea:

I had an Aunt who had dementia. This is obviously a terrible outlook. But her and my Uncle seemed to be doing okay. My Uncle was an ultra-competent guy, highly stable, the person you could rely on; and had been his whole adult life. So it was shocking when he had a mental breakdown and became manic. There was probably something physical going on, but what was also going on was that he had wanted my aunt to be able to live normally for as long as possible, so had been covering everything - for a year or more he'd had to be alert 7 days a week in case my aunt tried to cook on the gas stove or something like that, at which she was no longer safe. So the risk-alert part of his brain had been constantly overworked.

I appreciate that this is scientific research, but there are definitely companies out there that will try to row-hammer everyone's brain if this sort of thing is not heavily controlled.

[dgacmu]

I'm not sure it's about overworking as much as stress - stress is a known potential trigger for manic episodes. Typically in people who already have some biological potential for experiencing it. And the stress of having your partner come down with dementia and suddenly becoming their full-time caregiver must be absolutely massive.

But re the underlying physical thing: You might look back and be able to spot some episodes of hypomania in your uncle's life. Perhaps just reduced sleep, or twinges of paranoia, or periods of on-again/off-again hyperproductivity, etc.

Hope that if this story is recent he's doing well. The recent generations of medications to prevent and treat mania are a huge improvement on the ones available in the past, so fingers crossed.

[ajb]

This was a while back, they have both now passed; but thanks for the good wishes.

[SubiculumCode]

A completely off-topic anecdote, then a completely unfounded fear based on a clear misunderstanding of this research. If companies ever start making us live in a MRI machine so they can reliably activate brain areas with certain stimuli, I think there is a bigger problem we are having.

Here is how I see it. This type of research helps us understand the brain, helps us do things like model potential surgery sites better (e.g. for seizure activity interventions). What it does not do is become the basis for mind reading.

Just so that you know that I am not totally unsympathetic to your apparent worldview, let me tell you how I think your concern might actually play out:

AI continues to get more powerful, and computer brain interfaces begin to move beyond EEG scalp electrodes, but begins to take the form or brain augmentation via integrating networked AI compute into implanted chips with electrode neural interfaces, where our brain's neurons and the neural interfaces learn to speak each other's language (i.e. integrate). I can actually see this happening within 20 years. At first, it would be our brain using this augmentation for greater intelligence, etc. However, remote manipulation of the interface could reverse control of brain activity, leading exactly to your fear.

But this research? This is light years from that,,,so much so that it is not even relevant to bring up unless you are just against all technology.

[akramachamarei]

> I appreciate that this is scientific research, but there are definitely companies out there that will try to row-hammer everyone's brain if this sort of thing is not heavily controlled.

What's to gain in doing so?

[tikimcfee]

I 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-...

[akramachamarei]

> 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.

[SubiculumCode]

Its like we don't already show faces in fMRI experiments because we know that it will often activate the fusiform face area. Its just light years away from anything dangerous, that I am compelled, as a neuroscientist, to try to shake some sense into people. This is HN, but it feels like twitter on some topics.

[542354234235]

This just strikes me as the false dichotomy that there are two option; complete freedom of choice, and complete mind control that you are physically incapable of resisting. That as long as you are not physically incapable of, say turning off a video, that there is no problem. Just because you can stop using crack doesn't mean it isn't dangerously addictive. Just because you can say no to someone holding a gun to your head does not mean it isn't incredibly coercive.

Also this seems to ignore that people can be influenced or manipulated without being consciously aware of it. Like the people that say that marketing doesn’t work on them, failing to see that every interaction with the products and services they buy and use are curated in some way to influence and manipulate them.

[akramachamarei]

I'm not certain I took that dichotomy as a premise, but regardless I agree there is a middle ground of many patches occupied by real events characterized by mixtures of intentionality and submission. That's the easy part. What I think is the harder question posed by my original parent is when is it worth wielding the state at the issue.

For example, I'm in theory opposed to the prohibition on crack cocaine, despite its strong consistent effect on personal agency, because of two things: basic moral principles (my body my choice), and the massive (hopefully unintended) side effects of prohibition. Namely, mass incarceration, black markets, decreased drug quality, gang violence, exhaustion of policing resources, the public perception of systemic racism, and tax losses. My guess is the downsides of a hypothetical ban on algorithmically optimized advertisements would be of a very different kind but similar quantity. And again, the other issue is basic moral principles. I'm not comfortable with bracketing free expression with numerous exceptions, rate-limits, inspectors, or whatever apparatchiks would be employed to enforce such a restriction.

[bogwog]

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

[bcjdjsndon]

I bet it wasn't overwork, it was the fight or flight response being constantly activated for your uncle when he's caring for your aunt who could do anything unpredictably.