Banning on scary ideas can relax but causes more harm than good

In 1818, Mary Shelley invented a technique that has been used for both good and sick in centuries. This is called science fiction.

You may not think that a literary style matters as technology, but science-fi stories are long-term tools to predict and criticize science. Shelley FrancusteinThe first true science-fi novel by many is considered by many people, in 1955, it was powerful for South Africa to ban it. It set the formula with a story that still serves as a warning of unexpected results.

His composition does not have accurate science employed by Victor Frankstein, as far as we know, possible. But the researchers are capable of bringing the dead human mind back to life today. To test the effects of treatment for the choice of Alzheimer’s disease, after death, there are experiments to re -start cellular activity (but, but, not, not consciousness) (see “from the verge of death” Radical treatment that bring back people “).

It is not difficult to think about many science-fi stories dealing with similar scenarios and imagine what can happen next. The same is true about the work reported in “AI simulation of 1000 people accurately repeat their behavior”, in which researchers are using the technique behind the chat to repeat the ideas and behaviors of specific individuals. , With shocking success.

In both cases, the teams behind this research are deeply aware of the moral concerns involved in their work on the lines of the fact, blurred, imagination and being human, which is held with strong moral inspections Being done, and made public in an initial stage with its details. But now that technology has been demonstrated, there is nothing to stop more nefarious groups, with the ability to harm more without monitoring.

Does this mean that research should be banned, as she was Shelley’s book, being in the wrong hands for fear? Far away from Concerns about the tech are dealt with the best way through suitable, evidence-based regulation and sharp punishment for transfers. When the regulators overrect, we remember not only technology but also to criticize and discuss it.