Point taken. I cant help but build my morals into my assumptions, so I assume we are not talking about doing things on individuals against their will. You kinda pointed at that possibility and I appreciate it.
This (what GP and this story is about) is voluntary. Like letting a primitive android into your house so you can order pizza, or carrying around a sophisticated connected computer that informs you. The next step is always tighter integration. Pretending that an ethical review board is going to prevent "closed source humans" is not going to work.
People understanding it is the only way I can see to prevent it (it's already the status quo). I'm honestly looking for suggestions.
I also don’t believe a human can, because we look at that nice doctor who is offering sincere advice and think “they have my best interests at heart”. We certainly don’t make rational judgments of probability, because if we as a species could do that, lotteries would not exist.
This (what GP and this story is about) is voluntary. Like letting a primitive android into your house so you can order pizza, or carrying around a sophisticated connected computer that informs you. The next step is always tighter integration. Pretending that an ethical review board is going to prevent "closed source humans" is not going to work.
People understanding it is the only way I can see to prevent it (it's already the status quo). I'm honestly looking for suggestions.