Get Out of My Head

Brain data and the law.

By
20

If you’re fearful of the future, you may not want to tune in to today’s terrifying Remnant. Jonah’s guest is Nita Farahany, a professor at Duke Law School and the author of The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology. The book explores the rise of neurotechnology—devices designed to track our brain signals to figure out exactly what we’re thinking and feeling and why. But would a world of mental surveillance and ubiquitous neural interfaces be exciting or dystopian? And what are the implications of this technology for our laws, behaviors, and liberties?

This episode is sponsored by our friends at FIRE. FIRE’s mission is to safeguard and uphold the right of all Americans to freedom of speech. Be a part of the front line of a growing movement by joining the FIRE Update.

Show Notes:

–Dr. Farahany’s webpage

–Dr. Farahany’s new book, The Battle for Your Brain

–The Remnant with Jonathan Adler

–Dr. Farahany: “TikTok Is Part of China’s Cognitive Warfare Campaign”

–Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism

–Dr. Farahany: “Searching Secrets”

By
Comments (20)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Sam19952005

    One of the best podcasts of the year, what a great smart guest!! Jonah did a fine job as he always does but WOW. Thanks and asking for more...

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Seth B

    That was fascinating.

    Sarah and David are going to be kicking themselves for not getting Dr. Farahany on AO first. ;)

    Incidentally, you might try to get Nina Schick on sometime. I've heard her speak a couple of times on Sam Harris's podcast about deep fakes, generative AI more broadly, and its connections - actual and potential - to world politics. Very interesting. She's a contributor at CNN, too, so maybe someone over at your other job can put you in touch with her.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Brett Myers

    Fantastic episode. Thought it was unfortunate Jonah seemed a bit of a curt dick to the guest at the end. I find this sort of stuff a bit more substantively relevant than much of the punditry, frankly. More of this and Klon Kitchen type stuff, please. I know it's not a technology podcast, but this stuff is certainly as relevant to current society as another lecture on romanticism.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    That was really interesting. I agree with Jonah that Dr. Farahany's assumptions regarding the eventual development of effective technology in this area were unpersuasive.

    Collapse
  5. P Satter

    Interesting interview. Dr. Farahany is to be commended for clearly explaining the need for preemptive ethical guardrails for this sort of technology.

    Collapse
  6. Cbailey348

    This is an awesome, interesting and scary subject. Great Podcast!

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Andy Napoli

    Jonah -- you didn't ask Dr Farahany the question I asked you at the AEI (DC) live podcast a few months ago. Specifically, would legislation that allowed individual people to own their own metadata as intellectual property, help mitigate the harmful effects of this kind of tech? (I'd asked about it in the context of social media but I think it's even more applicable here, too). I am convinced that most of the bad effects of social media (and the downsides of this kind of neuro-tech) flow from a business model that allows tech companies to offer "free" goods and services to people, who then generate vasts amount of metadata by interacting with the tech. Thus, the user's data is the product; you're the one who's on the menu.

    It seems to me that the way to mitigate this, is to legally establish the principle that the metadata generated by your own decisions, thoughts, and behaviors, is owned by you. NOT the tech company. The tech company should be required to purchase the metadata and sensor readings you're generating by interacting with their products or services. That shifts power back to the consumer and away from the tech company, and allows for a more even bargain to be struck (to include better limits on how the data can be used or shared).

    In my view, it would fundamentally change the business model in a better way. Tech companies would no longer be in the business of hijacking attention per se in order to 'shake loose' the meta-data. They'd have to offer us some kind of beneficial experience whereby we'd see the value of the meta-data returned to us (either in the form of discounted or free services/goods, or a monetary reimbursement). We'd be invested in the activity. If my meta-data helps a tech company unlock a whole new market and make billions, I ought to be compensated for that. And if they need to compensate us, they need to offer us something more than attention hijacking crap that has all these terrible downstream effects on our society and form of government.

    Collapse
    1. MathewA

      "They'd have to offer us some kind of beneficial experience"

      Isn't that what they already do? They offer you free search, free maps, free email, free social media etc

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Andy Napoli

        The nuance I'm trying to communicate is that if individuals "own" (explicitly) the meta-data they generate while using a product, then the company offering the service or good would have to assign a market value to your meta-data, and then assign another market value to the 'search, maps, email, social media etc' that they're offering in exchange or in lieu of cash. Under my proposed approach, the company would have to give you TWO options: (1) pay you in cash for the value they think your meta-data is worth to them, or (2) allow you to waive your right to be paid in cash by offering you a bundle of services or goods instead.

        What happens today may appear on the surface to be similar but in reality, the company has all the negotiating leverage and the consumer's leverage is to basically just forego the service or good entirely on an all-or-nothing basis. There's no way for a consumer to even know what they're giving up and what the monetary value of their meta-data is. As a result, they have no way to compare it to what they're giving up in exchange for the "free search, free maps, free email, free social media etc." Maybe I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that the value of the meta-data is FAR higher than the value of the 'free stuff' they're offering to us right now.

        Furthermore, if we were required to be given the option of being paid in cash, there'd be true market competition for our meta-data and we could shop around among companies for the company that offered us the best deal. You could then compare not just the monetary value, but also compare the 'free stuff' offers to each other. My bet is that companies would eventually just offer the cash because there's a reason why "barter" never lasted beyond the Bronze Age as a major method of exchange for goods and services.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Andy Napoli

    Absolutely fascinating, Jonah.

    Not mentioned (at least I don't remember it if it was) -- military applications of this tech. Which I think will be where it becomes adopted most quickly. It's not just useful for gamers. Allowing pilots, special forces, or even ordinary Soldiers/Marines to be able to issue commands or messages with a thought, without having to type, speak, or even look in a certain direction, would be a huge advantage.

    Being able to monitor their stress levels remotely and locally would also be a huge advantage. Especially because when people experience tremendous stress, the flood of adrenaline into the bloodstream eventually warps the brain's perception. It causes a sort of tunnel vision whereby the brain shuts out most other sensory perception and narrows down to the things that appear to be most immediately threatening. This kind of tunnel vision is what most military training is intended to overcome. Trainers know that when you're being shot at or attacked, your ability to think clearly is severely impaired, so they attempt to compensate by imparting "muscle memory" -- repetitive, realistic training that helps the servicemember (or policeman) act on autopilot without having to think about their task.

    The limitation of that training, though, is that when a person is under tremendous stress and is acting on rote training, terrible mistakes can still be made. Usually this involves shooting innocent people or perceiving a friendly force as hostile. Imagine if this technology could help keep military personnel stress levels better managed so they remain clear-headed in critical situations. It usually takes surviving multiple battles for a person to become a 'seasoned veteran' who is capable of remaining cool and collected in the middle of a firefight or dogfight. Most never get that far because they get killed or injured. And they often get killed or injured because they react oddly or freeze up in their first few engagements. If this technology could allow nearly every green Soldier to act and think like a seasoned veteran, that would be a quantum leap in battlefield effectiveness and create a whole order of magntitude beneficial impact. It could also potentially reduce unnecessary police shootings of civilians by an order of magnitude, too.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Dan Baldwin

    Neuro-generated text will never, EVER fly in the real world. Give neuro-generation text software to a class of 14 year olds and have them generate 500 word essays in real time in class, and I guarantee that within 15 seconds the results would probably cause class-action lawsuits against the school districts, warrant several arrests, and (for a more sobering moment) identify likely pedophiles and other exceptionally-deviant sexual preferences.
    Because no one, and I mean NO one, can keep their thoughts focused for more than 30 seconds when in a group situation. All our minds are like stews in those settings, and every single one of us has micro-fantasies and daydreams and thoughts running through our heads in those situations that are utterly inappropriate.

    Then imagine being told you have to think a 500 word essay in real time with an audience. THAT future isn't going to happen, or else Thought Crime will become a reality.

    Collapse
  10. Remnantartist

    This was a really good podcast, I'd love for you to have Professor Farahany back.

    Also, I now know why when Jonah goes out in public he wears Magnetos helmet.

    Collapse
Load More