In 2018, I wrote extensively about the emerging opportunities and challenges around augmentation technologies in the book Films from the Future — including the advances being promised by Elon Musk’s company Neuralink.
在2018年，我在 《未来电影 》一书中广泛地介绍了增强技术周围的新兴机遇和挑战， 包括埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)的公司Neuralink所承诺的进步。
As Neuralink gears up to demonstrate their latest advances in cutting edge brain-machine interface technology, I thought it worth posting a few relevant excerpts from the book here. These are from the chapter that is inspired by the 1995 Anime movie Ghost in the Shell, and focuses on the opportunities and challenges surrounding human augmentation.
当Neuralink准备展示他们在尖端的人机界面技术方面的最新进展时，我认为有必要在此处发布这本书的一些相关摘录。 这些内容摘自受1995年动漫电影《攻壳机动队》启发的一章，重点关注围绕人类增强的机会和挑战。
透过黑暗的玻璃杯 (Through a Glass Darkly)
On June 4, 2016, Elon Musk tweeted: “Creating a neural lace is the thing that really matters for humanity to achieve symbiosis with machines.”
2016年6月4日， 埃隆·马斯克 ( Elon Musk)发推文 ：“创建神经花边对人类实现与机器的共生至关重要。”
This might just have been a bit of entrepreneurial frippery, inspired by the science fiction writer Iain M. Banks, who wrote extensively about “neural lace” technology in his Culture novels. But Musk, it seems, was serious, and in 2017 he launched a new company to develop ultra-high-speed speed brain-machine interfaces.
受科幻小说家伊恩·班克斯(Iain M. Banks)的启发，这可能只是某种企业家的烦恼，他在他的文化小说中广泛撰写了有关“神经花边”技术的文章。 但是马斯克似乎很认真，在2017年他成立了一家新公司来开发超高速速脑机接口。
Musk’s company, Neuralink, set out to disrupt conventional thinking and transform what is possible with human-machine interfaces, starting with a talent-recruitment campaign that boldly stated, “No neuroscience experience is required.” Admittedly, it’s a little scary to think that a bunch of computer engineers and information technology specialists could be developing advanced systems to augment the human brain. But it’s a sign of the interesting times we live in that, as entrepreneurs and technologists become ever more focused on fixing what they see as the limitations of our biological selves, the boundaries between biology, machines, and cyberspace are becoming increasingly blurred.
马斯克的公司Neuralink致力于颠覆传统思维并改变人机界面的可能性，首先是一项人才招募活动，该活动大胆地宣称：“不需要神经科学经验。” 诚然，认为一群计算机工程师和信息技术专家可能会开发先进的系统来增强人的大脑有点吓人。 但这标志着我们所处的有趣时代，因为企业家和技术人员越来越专注于解决他们认为自己的生物自我的局限性，生物学，机器和网络空间之间的界限越来越模糊。
插入，被入侵 (Plugged In, Hacked Out)
In Western culture, we deeply associate our brains with our identity. They are the repository of the memories and the experiences that define us. But they also represent the inscrutable neural circuits that guide and determine our perspectives, our biases, our hopes and dreams, our loves, our beliefs, and our fears. Our brain is where our cognitive abilities reside (“gut” instinct not withstanding); it’s what enables us to form bonds and connections with others, and it’s what determines our capacity to be a functioning and valuable part of society — or so our brains lead us to believe. To many people, these are essential components of the cornucopia of attributes that define them, and to lose them, or have them altered, would be to lose part of themselves.
在西方文化中，我们将大脑与身份深深地联系在一起。 它们是定义我们的记忆和经验的仓库。 但是它们也代表了难以捉摸的神经回路，它们引导并确定我们的观点，偏见，希望和梦想，我们的爱，我们的信念和我们的恐惧。 我们的大脑位于我们的认知能力所在(“直觉”无法忍受)； 这是使我们能够与他人建立联系和纽带的原因，也是决定我们成为社会运转和有价值的部分的能力的原因，或者使我们的大脑使我们相信。 对于许多人来说，这些是定义聚宝盆的属性的聚宝盆的基本组成部分，失去它们或对其进行更改将失去一部分自己。
This is, admittedly, a somewhat skewed perspective. Modern psychology and neurology are increasingly revealing the complexities and subtleties of the human brain and the broader biological systems it’s intimately intertwined with. Yet despite this, for many of us, our internal identity — how we perceive and understand ourselves, and who we believe we are—is so precious that anything that threatens it is perceived as a major risk. This is why neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s can be so distressing, and personality changes resulting from head traumas so disturbing. It’s also why it can be so unsettling when we see people we know undergoing changes in their personality or beliefs. These changes force us to realize that our own identity is malleable, and that we in turn could change. And, as a result, we face the realization that the one thing we often rely on as being a fixed certainty, isn’t.
诚然，这是一个偏斜的观点。 现代心理学和神经病学越来越多地揭示出人类大脑以及与之紧密相连的更广泛的生物系统的复杂性和微妙性。 尽管如此，对于我们许多人而言，我们的内部身份(我们如何感知和理解自己以及我们相信自己是谁)是如此宝贵，以至于威胁到它的任何事物都被视为重大风险。 这就是为什么像阿尔茨海默氏症这样的神经系统疾病如此令人困扰，而头部外伤导致的人格变化如此令人不安的原因。 这也是为什么当我们看到认识的人的性格或信仰发生变化的人时会如此不安的原因。 这些变化迫使我们认识到自己的身份具有延展性，而我们反过来可能会发生变化。 结果，我们面对的事实是，我们经常依靠的一件事是固定确定性。
Over millennia, we’ve learned as a species to cope with the fragility of self-identity. But this fragility doesn’t sit comfortably with us. Rather, it can be extremely distressing, as we recognize that disease, injuries, or persuasive influences can change us. As a society, we succeed most of the time in absorbing this reality, and even in some cases embracing it. But neural enhancements bring with them a brand new set of threats to self-identity, and ones that I’m not sure we’re fully equipped to address yet, including vulnerability to outside manipulation.
几千年来，我们已经学会了应对自我认同的脆弱性。 但是，这种脆弱性使我们感到不舒服。 相反，这可能非常令人沮丧，因为我们认识到疾病，伤害或有说服力的影响可以改变我们。 作为一个社会，我们大多数时候都成功地吸收了这种现实，甚至在某些情况下也接受了这一现实。 但是神经增强功能带来了一系列新的自我身份威胁，而且我不确定我们是否有能力应对这些威胁，包括易受外部操纵的威胁。
Elon Musk’s neural lace is a case in point, as a technology with both vast potential and largely unknown risks. It’s easy to imagine how overlaying the human brain with a network of connections, processors and communications devices could vastly enhance our abilities and allow us to express ourselves more completely. Imagine if you could control your surroundings through your thoughts. Or you could type, or search the net, just by thinking about it. Or even if you could turbocharge your cognitive abilities at the virtual press of a button, or change your mood, recall information faster, get real-time feedback on who you’re speaking with, save and recall experiences, manipulate vast cyber networks, all through the power of your mind. It would be like squeezing every technological advancement from the past five hundred years into your head, and magnifying it a hundred-fold. If technologies like the neural lace reached their full potential, they would provide an opportunity for users to far exceed their full biological potential, and express their self-identity more completely than ever before.
埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)的神经系带就是一个很好的例子，因为这项技术具有巨大的潜力和未知的风险。 很难想象，如何用连接，处理器和通信设备组成的网络覆盖人脑可以极大地增强我们的能力，并使我们能够更完整地表达自己。 想象一下，如果您可以通过自己的思想控制周围的环境。 或者，您也可以只考虑一下即可输入或搜索网络。 或者即使您可以通过虚拟地按下按钮来增强您的认知能力，或者改变您的心情，更快地回忆信息，获得与您正在与谁交谈的实时反馈，保存和回忆经历，操纵庞大的网络，等等通过你的思想力量。 这就像将过去五百年来的每一项技术进步都挤进脑海，然后放大一百倍。 如果像神经花边这样的技术能够发挥其全部潜能，它们将为用户提供一个超越其全部生物潜能的机会，并比以往任何时候都更完整地表达自己的身份。
It’s not hard to see how seductive some people might find such a technology. Of course, we’re a long, long way from any of this. Despite massive research initiatives on the brain, we’re still far from understanding the basics of how it operates, and how we can manipulate this. Yet this is not stopping people from experimenting, despite what this might lead to.
不难看出，有些人可能会发现这种技术多么诱人。 当然，我们离这一切还有很长的路要走。 尽管在大脑方面进行了大量研究计划，但我们仍远未了解其运作方式以及如何进行操作的基本知识。 尽管这可能会导致人们进行试验，但这并不能阻止人们进行试验。
In 2014, the neurosurgeon Phil Kennedy underwent elective brain surgery, not to correct a problem, but in an attempt to create a surgically implanted brain-machine interface. Kennedy had developed a deep brain probe that overcame the limitations of simply placing a wire in someone’s brain, by encouraging neurons to grow into a hollow glass tube. By experimenting on himself, he hoped to gain insight into how the parts of the brain associated with language operate, and whether he could decode neural signals as words. But he also had a vision of a future where our brains are intimately connected to machines, one that he captured in the 2012 novel 2051, published under the pseudonym Alpha O. Royal.
2014年，神经外科医师Phil Kennedy进行了选择性脑外科手术，不是为了解决问题，而是尝试创建通过外科手术植入的脑机界面 。 肯尼迪开发了一种深层的大脑探针，它通过鼓励神经元长成一根空心的玻璃管，从而克服了简单地将导线插入人脑的局限性。 通过对自己进行试验，他希望了解与语言相关的大脑各部分如何工作，以及是否可以将神经信号解码为单词。 但他也对未来充满了远见，我们的大脑与机器紧密相连，这是他在2012年的小说《 2051 》(以化名Alpha O. Royal出版)中捕捉到的。
In this brief science fiction story, Kennedy, a.k.a. Alpha O. Royal, describes a future where brains can be disconnected from their bodies, and people can inhabit a virtual world created by sensors and probes that directly read and stimulate their neurons. In the book, this becomes the key that opens up interplanetary travel, as hurling a wired-up brain through space turns out to be a lot easier than having to accompany it with a body full of inconvenient organs. Fantastical as the book is, Kennedy uses it to articulate his belief that the future of humanity will depend on connecting our brains to the wider world through increasingly sophisticated technologies; starting with his hollow brain probes, and extending out to wireless-linked probes, that are able to read and control neurons via light pulses.
在这个简短的科幻小说故事中，肯尼迪(又名Alpha O. Royal)描述了一个未来，大脑可以与身体断开连接，人们可以居住在由直接读取和刺激神经元的传感器和探针创建的虚拟世界中。 在这本书中，这成为打开行星际旅行的关键，因为事实证明，比起将大脑与一个器官不便的人体相伴，将大脑甩向太空要容易得多。 肯尼迪(Kennedy)像本书一样神奇，用它表达了他的信念，即人类的未来将取决于通过越来越先进的技术将我们的大脑与更广阔的世界连接起来； 从他的空心脑探针开始，一直延伸到能够通过光脉冲读取和控制神经元的无线链接探针。
Amazingly, we are already moving closer to some of the sensing technology that Kennedy envisions in 2051. In 2016, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley announced they had built a millimeter-sized wireless neural sensor that they dubbed “neural dust.” Small numbers of these, it was envisaged, could be implanted in someone’s head to provide wireless feedback on neural activity from specific parts of the brain. The idea of neural dust is still at a very early stage of development, but it’s not beyond the realm of reason that these sensors could one day be developed into sophisticated wireless brain interfaces. And so, while Kennedy’s sci-fi story stretches credulity, reality isn’t as far behind as we might think.
令人惊讶的是，我们已经接近肯尼迪在2051年设想的某些传感技术。 2016年，加州大学伯克利分校的研究人员宣布，他们已经建造了一个毫米大小的无线神经传感器，他们称之为“神经尘埃”。 设想将其中的少量植入人的头部，以提供来自大脑特定部位的神经活动的无线反馈。 神经尘埃的想法仍处于发展的早期阶段，但是有一天这些传感器可以被开发成复杂的无线大脑接口 ，这并不是没有理由的。 因此，尽管肯尼迪的科幻故事充满了可信度，但现实并没有我们想象的那么遥远。
There’s another side of Kennedy’s story that is relevant here, though. 2051 is set in a future where artificial intelligence and “nanobots” (which we’ll reencounter in chapter nine) have become a major threat. In an admittedly rather silly plotline, we learn that the real-life futurist and transhumanist Ray Kurzweil has loaned the Chinese nanobots which combine advanced artificial intelligence with the ability to self-replicate. These proceed to take over China and threaten the rest of the world. And they have the ability to hack into and manipulate wired-up brains. Because everything that these brains experience comes through their computer connections, the AI nanobots can effectively manipulate someone’s reality with ease, and even create an alternate reality that they are incapable of perceiving as not being real.
不过，肯尼迪故事的另一面与此相关。 未来的2051年将成为人工智能和“纳米机器人”(我们将在第九章中再次介绍)的主要威胁。 在公认的相当愚蠢的情节中，我们了解到现实生活的未来主义者和超人类主义者雷·库兹韦尔借给了中国纳米机器人，这种机器人将先进的人工智能与自我复制的能力结合在一起。 这些行动接管了中国并威胁着世界其他地区。 他们具有入侵和操纵大脑的能力。 因为这些大脑体验到的一切都是通过计算机连接来实现的，所以AI纳米机器人可以轻松有效地操纵某人的现实，甚至可以创建一个替代现实，使他们无法感知到不是真实的。
The twist in Kennedy’s tale is that the fictitious nanobots simply want global peace and universal happiness. And the logical route to achieving this, according to their AI hive-mind, is to assimilate humans, and convince them to become part of the bigger collective. It’s all rather Borg-like if you’re a Start Trek fan, but with a benevolent twist.
肯尼迪故事的转折点在于，虚构的纳米机器人只想要全球和平与普遍幸福。 按照他们的AI蜂巢思维，实现这一目标的合理途径是吸收人类，并说服他们成为更大的集体的一部分。 如果您是Start Trek的粉丝，那全都是Borg风格的，但是却带有善意的转折。
Kennedy’s story is, admittedly, rather fanciful. But he does hit on what is probably one of the most challenging aspects of having a fully connected brain, especially in a world where we are seceding increasing power to autonomous systems: vulnerability to hacking.
诚然，肯尼迪的故事相当虚构。 但是他确实触及了拥有完全连接的大脑的最具挑战性的方面之一，特别是在我们正在割裂自动系统日益强大的功能的世界中：黑客的脆弱性。
Some time ago, I was speaking with a senior executive at IBM, and he confessed that, from his elevated perspective, cybersecurity is one of the greatest challenges we face as a global society. As we see the emergence of increasingly clever hacks on increasingly powerful connected systems, it’s not hard to see why.
前段时间，我在与IBM的一位高级主管交谈时，他承认，从他较高的角度来看，网络安全是我们作为全球社会面临的最大挑战之一。 当我们看到功能越来越强大的连接系统上出现越来越聪明的骇客时，不难看出为什么。
Cyberspace — the sum total of our computers, the networks they form, and the virtual world they represent — is unique in that it’s a completely human-created dimension that sits on top of our reality (a concept we come back to in chapter nine and the movie Transcendence). We have manufactured an environment that quite literally did not exist until relatively recently. It’s one where we can now build virtual realities that surpass our wildest dreams. And because, in the early days of computing, we were more interested in what we could do rather than what we should (or even how we should do it), this environment is fraught with vulnerabilities. Not to put too fine a point on it, we’ve essentially built a fifth dimension to exist in, while making up the rules along the way, and not worrying too much about what could go wrong until it was too late.
网络空间(计算机，它们形成的网络以及它们代表的虚拟世界的总和)的独特之处在于，它是人类创造的一个维度，它位于我们的现实之上(我们在第九章回到电影《 超越》 )。 我们创造了一个直到最近才真正存在的环境。 这是我们现在可以构建超越我们最疯狂梦想的虚拟现实的地方。 而且，因为在计算的初期，我们更感兴趣的是我们可以做什么，而不是我们应该 (甚至我们应该怎么做)什么，这样的环境充满了漏洞。 不要对此提出过分的观点，我们基本上已经建立了第五个维度，同时要一路制定规则，并且不要为过早出现的问题担心太多。
Of course, the digital community learned early on that cybersecurity demanded at least as much attention to good practices, robust protocols, smart design, and effective governance as any physical environment, if people weren’t going to get hurt. But certainly, in the early days, this was seasoned with the idea that, if everything went pear-shaped, someone could always just pull the plug.
当然，数字社区很早就了解到，如果人们不会受到伤害，网络安全至少需要像任何物理环境一样关注良好实践，健壮协议，智能设计和有效治理。 但是可以肯定的是，在早期，这是一个想法，如果一切都变成梨形，那么总有人可以拔掉插头。
Nowadays, as the world of cyber is inextricably intertwined with biological and physical reality, this pulling-the-plug concept seems like a quaint and hopelessly outmoded idea. Cutting off the power simply isn’t an option when our water, electricity, and food supplies depend on cyber-systems, when medical devices and life-support systems rely on internet connectivity, where cars, trucks and other vehicles cannot operate without being connected, and where financial systems are utterly dependent on the virtual cyber worlds we’ve created.
如今，由于网络世界已与生物和物理现实密不可分，因此，这个即插即用的概念似乎是一个古朴而绝望的过时想法。 当我们的水，电和食物供应依赖于网络系统时，当医疗设备和生命支持系统依赖于互联网连接时，如果汽车，卡车和其他车辆无法连接就无法操作，那么切断电源就根本不是选择，而金融系统完全依赖于我们创建的虚拟网络世界。
It’s this convergence between cyber and physical realities that is massively accelerating current technological progress. But it also means that cyber-vulnerabilities have sometimes startling real-world consequences, including making everything from connected thermostats to digital pacemakers vulnerable to attack and manipulation. And, not surprisingly, this includes brain- machine interfaces.
网络和物理现实之间的融合极大地加速了当前的技术进步。 但这也意味着网络漏洞有时会给现实世界带来惊人的后果，包括使从连接的恒温器到数字起搏器的所有内容都容易受到攻击和操纵。 而且，毫不奇怪，这包括脑机接口。
In Ghost in the Shell, this vulnerability leads to ghost hacking, the idea that if you connect your memories, thoughts, and brain functions to the net, someone can use that connection to manipulate and change them. It’s a frightening idea that, in our eagerness to connect our very soul to the net, we risk losing ourselves, or worse, becoming someone else’s puppet. It’s this vulnerability that pushes Major Kusanagi to worry about her identity, and to wonder if she’s already been compromised, or whether she would even know if she had been. For all she knows, she is simply someone else’s puppet, being made to believe that she’s her own person.
在Shell中的Ghost中 ，此漏洞导致幽灵黑客，即如果您将记忆，思想和大脑功能连接到网络，则有人可以使用该连接来操纵和更改它们。 这是一个令人恐惧的想法，因为我们渴望将自己的灵魂连接到网络上，因此我们有可能迷失自己，或更糟的是成为别人的s。 正是这种漏洞促使Kusanagi少校担心自己的身份，想知道她是否已经受到伤害，或者她是否会知道自己是否曾经受到伤害。 就她所知，她只是别人的s，让她相信自己是她自己的人。
With today’s neural technologies, this is a far-fetched fear. But still, there is near-certainty that, if and when someone connects a part of their brain to the net, someone else will work out how to hack that connection. This is a risk that far transcends the biological harms that brain implants and neural nets could cause, potentially severe as these are. But there’s perhaps an even greater risk here. As we move closer to merging the biological world we live in with the cyber world we’ve created, we’re going to have to grapple with living in a world that hasn’t had billions of years of natural selection for the kinks to be ironed out, and that reflects all the limitations and biases and illusions that come with human hubris. This is a world wherein human-made monsters lie waiting for us to stumble on them. And if we’re not careful, we’ll be giving people a one-way neurological door into it.
对于当今的神经技术，这是一个牵强的恐惧。 但是，几乎可以肯定的是，如果有人将自己的大脑的一部分连接到网络，那么其他人将研究如何破解这种连接。 这种风险远远超过了大脑植入物和神经网络可能造成的生物学危害，而这些危害可能是严重的。 但是这里可能存在更大的风险。 随着我们越来越接近将我们所生活的生物世界与我们所创建的网络世界融合，我们将不得不应对一个没有数十亿年自然选择的世界解决，这反映了人类自负的所有局限性，偏见和幻想。 在这个世界中，人造怪物躺在这里等待我们绊倒他们。 如果我们不小心的话，我们会给人们一个单向的神经学大门。
Not that I think this should be taken as an excuse not to build brain- machine interfaces. And in reality, it would be hard to resist the technological impetus pushing us in this direction. But at the very least, we should be working with maps that says in big bold letters, “Here be monsters.” And one of the “monsters” we’re going to face is the question of who has ultimate control over the enhanced and augmented bodies of the future.
我并不是认为这应该作为不建立脑机接口的借口。 实际上，很难抵抗将我们推向这个方向的技术动力。 但是至少，我们应该使用以粗体显示的地图，“这就是怪物”。 我们将要面对的“怪物”之一是谁对未来的增强和增强机构拥有最终控制权的问题。
您的法人团体 (Your Corporate Body)
If you have a body augmentation or an implant, who owns it? And who ultimately has control over it? It turns out that if you purchase and have installed a pacemaker or implantable cardiovascular defibrillator, or an artificial heart or other life-giving and life-saving devices, who can do what with it isn’t as straightforward as you might imagine. As a result, augmentation technologies like these raise a really tricky question — as you incorporate more tech into your body, who owns you? We’re still a long way from the body augmentations seen in Ghost in the Shell, but the movie nevertheless foreshadows questions that are going to become increasingly important as we continue to replace parts of our bodies with machines.
如果您有隆胸或植入物，谁拥有？ 最终谁能控制它？ 事实证明，如果您购买并安装了起搏器或可植入的心血管除颤器，或人造心脏或其他赋予生命和救生功能的设备，那么用它去做的事并不像您想象的那么简单。 结果，诸如此类的增强技术提出了一个非常棘手的问题-当您将更多技术整合到体内时，谁拥有您？ 与《 攻壳机动队》中看到的人体增强功能还有很长的路要走，但电影仍在预示着随着我们继续用机器替换身体的某些部分而变得越来越重要的问题。
In Ghost, Major Kusanagi’s body, her vital organs, and most of her brain are manufactured by the company Megatech. She’s still an autonomous person, with what we assume is some set of basic human rights. But her body is not her own. Talking with her colleague Batou, they reflect that, if she were to leave Section 9, she would need to leave most of her body behind. Despite the illusion of freedom, Kusanagi is effectively in indentured servitude to someone else by virtue of the technology she is constructed from.
在鬼 ，草薙大的身体，她的重要器官，大多数她的大脑是由该公司制造的MEGATECH。 她仍然是一个自治的人，我们假设有一些基本人权。 但是她的身体不是她自己的。 与她的同事巴图交谈时，他们反映出，如果她要离开第9节，她将需要把大部分身体留在身后。 尽管有自由的幻想，但草s通过她所运用的技术有效地使别人陷入了奴役。
Even assuming that there are ethical rules against body repossession, Kusanagi is dependent on regular maintenance and upgrades. Miss a service, and she runs the risk of her body beginning to malfunction, or becoming vulnerable to hacks and attacks. In other words, her freedom is deeply constrained by the company that owns her body and the substrate within which her mind resides.
即使假设存在抵制尸体的道德规则，草假也要依靠定期维护和升级。 错过服务，她将冒着身体开始故障或变得容易受到黑客和攻击的危险。 换句话说，她的自由受到拥有她的身体和她的思想所在的基质的公司的极大限制。
In 2015, Hugo Campos wrote an article for the online magazine Slate with the sub-heading, “I can’t access the data generated by my implanted defibrillator. That’s absurd.” Campos had a device inserted into his body — an Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator, or ICD — that constantly monitored his heartbeat, and that would jump-start his heart, were it to falter. Every seven years or so, the implanted device’s battery runs low, and the ICD needs to be replaced, what’s referred to as a “generator changeout.” As Campos describes, many users of ICDs use this as an opportunity to upgrade to the latest model. And in his case, he was looking for something specific with the changeout; an ICD that would allow him to personally monitor his own heart.
2015年，雨果·坎波斯(Hugo Campos)在网上杂志Slate上写了一篇文章，副标题为：“ 我无法访问植入式除颤器生成的数据。 太荒谬了 坎波斯的身体中插入了一个装置-植入式心脏除颤器，即ICD-不断监测他的心跳，如果步履蹒跚，那会跳动他的心脏。 每七年左右，植入设备的电池电量就会耗尽，需要更换ICD，这就是所谓的“发电机更换”。 正如Campos所述，许多ICD用户都以此为契机来升级到最新型号。 在他的情况下，他正在寻找与变更有关的特定内容； 一个ICD，可以让他亲自监视自己的心脏。
This should have been easy. ICDs are internet-connected these days, and regularly send the data they’ve collected to healthcare providers. Yet patients are not allowed access to this data, even though it’s generated by their own body. Campos’ solution was to purchase an ICD programmer off eBay and teach himself how to use it. He took the risk of flying close to the edge of legality to get access to his own medical implant.
这应该很容易。 目前，ICD已连接互联网，并定期将其收集的数据发送给医疗保健提供者。 但是，即使患者是由自己的身体产生的，也不允许患者访问此数据。 Campos的解决方案是从eBay上购买一个ICD编程器，并教他如何使用它。 他冒着逃到合法边缘的风险去获得自己的医疗植入物。
Campos’ experience foreshadows the control and ownership challenges that increasingly sophisticated implants and cyber/ machine augmentations raise. As he points out, “Implants are the most personal of personal devices. When they become an integral part of our organic body, they also become an intimate part of our identity.” And by extension, without their ethical and socially responsive development and use, a user’s identity becomes connected to those that have control over the device and its operations.
Campos的经验预示了日益复杂的植入物和网络/机器增强所带来的控制和所有权挑战。 正如他指出的那样：“放大器是最个人化的个人设备。 当它们成为我们有机体的组成部分时，它们也成为我们身份的亲密部分。” 进而，如果没有其道德和社会响应性的开发和使用，用户的身份就会与对设备及其操作具有控制权的人的身份联系起来。
In the case of ICDs, manufacturers and healthcare providers still have control over the data collected and generated by the device. You may own the ICD, but you have to take on trust what you are told about the state of your health. And you are still beholden to the “installers” for regular maintenance. Once the battery begins to fail, there are only so many places you can go for a refit. And unlike a car or a computer, the consequence of not having the device serviced or upgraded is possible death. It’s almost like being locked into a phone contract where you have the freedom to leave at any time, but contract “termination” comes with more sinister overtones. Almost, but not quite, as it’s not entirely clear if users of ICDs even have the option to terminate their contracts.
对于ICD，制造商和医疗保健提供者仍然可以控制设备收集和生成的数据。 您可能拥有ICD，但您必须信任关于健康状况的告知。 而且，您仍然可以定期维护“安装程序”。 电池开始出现故障后，您只能在很多地方进行改装。 与汽车或计算机不同， 不维修或升级设备可能导致死亡。 这几乎就像被锁定在电话合同中一样，您可以随时离开，但是合同“终止”带来了更多险恶的气氛。 几乎但不是全部，因为尚不清楚ICD的用户是否可以选择终止合同。
In 2007, Ruth and Tim England and John Coggins grappled with this dilemma through the hypothetical case of an ICD in a patient with terminal cancer. The hypothetical they set up was to ask who has the right to deactivate the device, if constant revival in the case of heart failure leads to continued patient distress. The scenario challenges readers of their work to think about the ethics of patient control over such implants, and the degree of control that others should have. Here, things turn out to be murkier than you might think. Depending on how the device is classified, whether it is considered a fully integrated part of the body, for instance, or an ongoing medical intervention, there are legal ramifications to who does what, and how. If, for instance, an ICD is considered simply as an ongoing medical treatment, the healthcare provider is able to decide on its continued use or termination, based on their medical judgment, even if this is against the wishes of the patient. In other words, the patient may own the ICD, but they have no control over its use, and how this impacts them.
在2007年，Ruth和Tim England和John Coggins通过假设性ICD晚期癌症患者的病例来应对这一难题 。 他们建立的假设是询问谁有权停用设备，如果在心力衰竭的情况下持续复苏导致持续的患者痛苦。 该场景挑战了读者的工作，以考虑患者对此类植入物进行控制的伦理以及其他人应具有的控制程度。 在这里，事情变得比您想像的要模糊。 根据设备的分类方式(例如，是将其视为人体的完整组成部分还是进行中的医疗干预措施)，对于谁在做什么以及如何做都有法律上的影响。 例如，如果仅将ICD视为正在进行的治疗，则医疗保健提供者可以根据其医疗判断决定其继续使用或终止治疗，即使这违背了患者的意愿。 换句话说，患者可能拥有ICD，但他们无法控制ICD的使用及其对他们的影响。
On the other hand, if the device is considered to be as fully integrated into the body as, say, the heart itself, a physician will have no more right to permanently switch it off than they have the right to terminally remove the heart. Similarly, the patient does not legally have the right to tamper with it in a way that will lead to death, any more than they could legally kill themselves.
另一方面，如果认为该设备与心脏本身一样完全整合到体内，那么医生将无权永久关闭它，而有权终止心脏。 同样，患者在法律上无权以可能导致死亡的方式对其进行篡改，这超出了他们合法杀害自己的范围。
In this case, England and colleagues suggest that intimately implanted devices should be treated as a new category of medical device. They refer to these as “integral devices” that, while not organic, are nevertheless a part of the patient. They go on to suggest that this definition, which lies somewhere between the options usually considered for ICDs, will allow more autonomy on the part of patient and healthcare provider. And specifically, they suggest that “a patient should have the right to demand that his ICD be disabled, even against medical advice.”
在这种情况下，英格兰及其同事建议将紧密植入的器械视为一种新的医疗器械类别。 他们称这些为“整体装置”，尽管不是有机的，但仍然是患者的一部分。 他们继续建议，该定义介于ICD通常考虑的选项之间，将使患者和医疗保健提供者具有更大的自治权。 具体来说，他们建议“即使在医疗建议下，患者也应有权要求禁用ICD。”
England’s work is helpful in thinking through some of the complexities of body implant ethics. But it stops far short of addressing two critical questions: Who has the right to access and control augmentations designed to enhance performance (rather than simply prevent death), and what happens when critical upgrades or services are needed?
英格兰的工作有助于通过身体植入伦理学的一些复杂性进行思考。 但是，它离解决两个关键问题还差得很远：谁有权访问和控制旨在增强性能(而不是简单地防止死亡)的增强功能，以及在需要关键升级或服务时会发生什么？
This is where we’re currently staring into an ethical and moral vacuum. It might not seem such a big deal when most integrated implants at the moment are health-protective rather than performance-enhancing. But we’re teetering on the cusp of technological advances that are likely to sweep us toward an increasingly enhanced future, without a framework for thinking about who controls what, and who ultimately owns who you are.
这是我们目前凝视着道德和道德真空的地方。 当目前大多数集成植入物对健康有益而不是提高性能时，似乎没什么大不了的。 但是，我们在技术进步的风口浪尖上摇摆不定，这些技术进步很可能使我们走向日渐增强的未来，而没有一个框架来思考谁控制什么以及谁最终拥有自己的身份。
This is very clear in emerging plans for neural implants, whether it’s Neuralink’s neural lace or other emerging technologies for connecting your brain to the net. While these technologies will inevitably have medical uses—especially in treating and managing neurological diseases like Parkinson’s disease—the expectation is that they will also be used to increase performance and ability in healthy individuals. And as they are surgically implanted, understanding who will have the power to shut them down, or to change their behavior and performance, is important. As a user, will you have any say in whether to accept an overnight upgrade, for instance? What will your legal rights be when a buggy patch leads to a quite-literal brain freeze? What happens when you’re given the choice of paying for “Neuralink 2.0” or keeping an implant that is no longer supported by the manufacturer? And what do you do when you discover your neural lace has a hardware vulnerability that makes it hackable?
在新兴的神经植入计划中，无论是Neuralink的神经束带还是其他将大脑连接到网络的新兴技术，这一点都非常明显。 尽管这些技术将不可避免地具有医学用途，尤其是在治疗和管理帕金森氏病等神经系统疾病中，但人们期望它们也将被用于提高健康个体的性能和能力。 而且，在进行外科手术植入时，了解谁有权关闭它们或改变其行为和性能非常重要。 作为用户，例如，您是否有接受过夜升级的决定？ 当有故障的补丁导致完全的大脑冻结时，您的合法权利是什么？ 如果您可以选择支付“ Neuralink 2.0”的费用或保留制造商不再支持的植入物，会发生什么？ 当发现您的神经花边具有使其容易被黑客攻击的硬件漏洞时，您会怎么做？
This last question is not idle speculation. In August 2016, the short-selling firm Muddy Waters Capital LLC released a report claiming that ICDs manufactured by St. Jude Medical, Inc.were vulnerable to potentially life-threatening cyberattacks. The report claimed:
最后一个问题不是空想。 2016年8月，卖空公司Muddy Waters Capital LLC 发布了一份报告，声称St.Jude Medical，Inc.制造的ICD容易受到威胁生命的网络攻击。 该报告声称：
“We have seen demonstrations of two types of cyber-attacks against [St Jude] implantable cardiac devices (‘cardiac devices’): a ‘crash’ attack that causes cardiac devices to malfunction— including by apparently pacing at a potentially dangerous rate; and, a battery drain attack that could be particularly harmful to device dependent users. Despite having no background in cybersecurity, Muddy Waters has been able to replicate in-house key exploits that help to enable these attacks.”
“我们已经看到了针对[St Jude]植入式心脏设备(“心脏设备”)的两种网络攻击的演示：“碰撞”攻击导致心脏设备发生故障-包括明显以可能的危险速度起搏； 电池耗电攻击可能对依赖设备的用户特别有害。 尽管没有网络安全方面的背景知识，但Muddy Waters仍能够复制内部关键漏洞利用方法，以帮助进行这些攻击。”
St. Jude vehemently denied the accusations, claiming that they were aimed at manipulating the company’s value (the company’s stock prices tumbled as the report was released). Less than a year later, St. Jude was acquired by medical giant Abbott. But shortly after this, hacking fears led to the US Food and Drug Administration recalling nearly half a million former St. Jude pacemakers due to an identified cybersecurity vulnerability.
圣裘德强烈否认了这些指控，声称这些指控旨在操纵公司的价值(报告发布时，公司股价暴跌)。 不到一年后，圣裘德被医疗巨头雅培公司收购。 但是在此之后不久，由于担心黑客行为，美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA) 召回了近半百万名前圣裘德起搏器，原因是发现了网络安全漏洞。
Fortunately, there were no recorded cases of attacks in this instance, and the fix was a readily implementable firmware update. But the case illustrates just how vulnerable web-connected intimate body enhancements can be, and how dependent users are on the manufacturer. Obviously, such systems can be hardened against attack. But the reality is that the only way to be completely cyber- secure is to have no way to remotely connect to an implanted device. And increasingly, this defeats the purpose for why a device is, or might be, implanted in the first place.
幸运的是，在这种情况下，没有记录到攻击案例，并且此修复程序是易于实施的固件更新。 但是该案例说明了与网络连接的贴身车身增强功能有多脆弱，以及依赖用户如何依赖制造商。 显然，这种系统可以抵抗攻击。 但是现实是，要完全实现网络安全，唯一的方法就是无法远程连接到植入的设备。 越来越多地，这违背了为什么要或首先要植入设备的目的。
As in the case of the St Jude pacemaker, there’s always the possibility of remotely-applied patches, much like the security patches that seem to pop up with annoying frequency on computer operating systems. With future intimate body enhancements, there will almost definitely be a continuing duty of care from suppliers to customers to ensure their augmentations are secure. But this in turn ties the user, and their enhanced body, closely to the provider, and it leaves them vulnerable to control by the providing company. Again, the scenario is brought to mind of what happens when you, as an enhanced customer, have the choice of keeping your enhancement’s buggy, security-vulnerable software, or paying for the operating system upgrade. The company may not own the hardware, but without a doubt, they own you, or at least your health and security.
就像St Jude起搏器一样，总是存在远程应用补丁的可能性，就像安全补丁在计算机操作系统上以烦人的频率弹出一样。 随着将来人体的私密性增强，从供应商到客户几乎肯定会有持续的护理责任，以确保他们的增强安全。 但这反过来将用户及其增强的身体与提供者紧密联系在一起，并使他们容易受到提供公司的控制。 同样，该方案使您想到了当您作为增强型客户选择保留增强型设备的漏洞，易受安全漏洞攻击的软件或为操作系统升级付费时会发生什么情况。 该公司可能不拥有硬件，但毫无疑问，它们拥有您，或者至少拥有您的健康和安全。
Things get even more complex as the hardware of implantable devices becomes outdated, and wired-in security vulnerabilities are discovered. On October 21, 2016, a series of distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks occurred around the world. Such attacks use malware that hijacks computers and other devices and redirects them to swamp cyber-targets with massive amounts of web traffic — so much traffic that they effectively take their targets out. What made the October 21 attacks different is that the hijacked devices were internet-connected “dumb devices”: home routers, surveillance cameras, and many others with a chip allowing them to be connected to the internet, creating an “Internet of Things.” It turns out that many of these devices, which are increasingly finding their way into our lives, have hardware that is outdated and vulnerable to being coopted by malware. And the only foolproof solution to the problem is to physically replace millions — probably billions — of chips.
随着植入式设备的硬件过时，事情变得更加复杂，并且发现了有线安全漏洞。 2016年10月21日，世界各地发生了一系列分布式拒绝服务(DDOS)攻击。 此类攻击使用了恶意软件，它们劫持了计算机和其他设备，并将其重定向到大量的Web流量，从而淹没了网络目标。 10月21日袭击的不同之处在于，被劫持的设备是与互联网连接的“哑巴设备”：家用路由器，监控摄像头以及许多其他芯片使它们可以连接到互联网，从而创建了“物联网”。 事实证明，这些设备中的许多越来越多地进入我们的生活，它们的硬件已经过时并且很容易被恶意软件所采用。 解决该问题的唯一万无一失的方法是物理替换数百万个(可能数十亿个)芯片。
The possibility of such vulnerabilities in biologically intimate devices and augmentations places a whole new slant on the enhanced body. If your enhancement provider has been so short-sighted as to use attackable hardware, who’s responsible for its security, and for physically replacing it if and when vulnerabilities are discovered? This is already a challenge, although thankfully tough medical device regulations have limited the extent of potential problems here so far. Imagine, though, where we might be heading with poorly-regulated innovation around body-implantable enhancements that aren’t designed for medical reasons, but to enhance ability. You may own the hardware, and you may have accepted any “buyer beware” caveats it came with. But who effectively owns you, when you discover that the hardware implanted in your legs, your chest, or your brain, has to be physically upgraded, and you’re expected to either pay the costs, or risk putting your life and well-being on the line?
在生物上亲密的设备和增强中出现此类漏洞的可能性使增强后的身体焕然一新。 如果您的增强功能提供商近视眼无法使用可攻击的硬件，那么谁来负责其安全性，以及在发现漏洞时以及由物理方式更换漏洞时负责？ 尽管幸运的是，严格的医疗器械法规迄今已限制了潜在问题的严重程度，但这已经是一个挑战。 但是，请想象一下，我们可能会在围绕可植入身体的增强功能方面进行不完善的创新，而这些功能并非出于医学原因而设计，而是为了增强功能。 您可能拥有硬件，并且可能已经接受了随附的任何“购买者当心”警告。 但是谁真正拥有了您，当您发现必须对腿部，胸部或大脑中植入的硬件进行物理升级时，您要么承担成本，要么冒着生命和福祉的风险在线上？
Without a doubt, as intimate body-enhancing technologies become more accessible, and consumers begin to clamor after what (bio)tech companies are producing, regulations are going to have to change and adapt to keep up. Hopefully this catch-up will include laws that protect consumers’ quality of life for the duration of having machine enhancements surgically attached or embedded. That said, there is a real danger that, in the rush for short-term gratification, we’ll see pushback against regulations that make it harder for consumers to get the upgrades they crave, and more expensive for manufacturers to produce them.
毫无疑问，随着贴心的身体增强技术变得越来越容易获得，并且消费者开始对(生物)技术公司生产的产品产生狂热，法规将不得不改变和适应以跟上。 希望这种追赶将包括在通过外科手术连接或嵌入机器增强功能的整个过程中保护消费者生活质量的法律。 话虽这么说，但真正的危险在于，在急于短期满足的情况下，我们会看到反对法规的倒推，这些法规使消费者更难获得他们渴望的升级，而制造商生产它们的成本更高。
This is a situation where Ghost on the Shell provides what I suspect is a deeply prescient foreshadowing of some of the legal and social challenges we face over autonomy, as increasingly sophisticated enhancements become available. The question is, will anyone pay attention before we’re plunged into an existential crisis around who we are, and who owns us?
在这种情况下，随着越来越复杂的增强功能的出现，《 Ghost on Shell》提供了我怀疑是对我们在自治方面面临的一些法律和社会挑战的深刻预见性预示。 问题是，在我们陷入关于我们是谁和谁拥有我们的生存危机之前，有人会关注吗？
From “Films from the Future: The Technology and Morality of Sci-Fi Movies.” Published by Mango Publishing, November 2018
摘自“未来电影：科幻电影的技术与道德”。 由Mango Publishing发布，2018年11月
1631
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
