Based on the OP, I believe they're primarily referring to the linked article on bodyjacking. Looking at that article, it is older (which can be a warning flag that it might need updating) and just taken as a standalone it does seem to be saying that merely having a DNI connection could lead to ones body getting hacked/teleoperated against your will. Taken by itself (and if we were having this conversation before the DNIs: Basic Components, Features and Risks, I would likely recommend updating the article a bit to make it clearer that this sort of thing does require physical hardware in place to bypass the nervous system and take over remotely. More on that in a minute.
Getting back to the immediate issue - The current DNI article includes this section in the list of DNI functions:
Exokinesia: Alongside sensory information a DNI is capable of intercepting and stimulating motor signals in the body. This ability has two broad functions; the first is to allow the user to hand over partial or full control of their body to another sophont or program. This "autopilot" feature can be used to run skill modules, transport the body whilst lynking or ensure healthy resting positions are adopted whilst the user is accessing a virch. etc.
If a given DNI implementation has this feature in place (OA's focus on Diversity! Diversity!! Diversity!!! means it's a virtual certainty that not all instances of DNI tech include this capability, or design it the same way, whether due to local cultural custom/law or individual choice), then the issue of a lack of physical hardware to engage in bodyjacking control goes away because the hardware is actually there since it would have been grown in place when the user had their DNI installed (or when their DNI organs developed, assuming they come from a culture that has both engineered its citizens to grow such things naturally and to include Exokinesia in their particular implementation of it). So the 'hacking via software alone' part becomes possible because the software/hardware to do it already exists 'on site' and the act of hacking is one of accessing and subverting an existing system, not directly taking over the mind/body just by transmitting information alone in a vacuum (so to speak).
Looking toward the beginning of the DNI article, it currently talks in terms of DNI neural link hardware spreading throughout the Central Nervous System - which technically includes the parts needed to send control signals to the limbs, senses, etc. It does not explicitly state that motor control elements are included, but the 'implication factor' in the current wording is pretty strong.
If I had to make a judgement here, I'd say that maybe we could slightly modify/add to the article to explicitly include that neural linking includes motor control elements of the CNS. But really the current article already covers that if one takes 'central nervous system' literally and doesn't interpret it to just mean the sensory/informational aspects of DNI which most SF limits itself to. So it's a matter of whether or not we want to make something clearer, not of an actual lack or mis-statement in the current article. I'm not really leaning one way or the other on this.
Rynn, as the original author of the DNI article, what are your thoughts on this?
Ok - having said all that (and this is the 'more in a minute' stuff I mentioned earlier):
I do have somewhat stronger feelings about the current Bodyjacking article possibly needing some updates or even more. Specifically:
a) The article article contains two links to the same page on DNI, which is a different page from the one mentioned above. So it's currently out of our editorial standard and linking to a page that does not include the information on Exokinesia and more extensive explanation of CNS installation, etc. This definitely needs fixing - I can take care of that.
b) The DNI article it currently links to is on the shorter side and older, although has also been updated more recently. It deals almost entirely with details of DNI installation rather than functions. I would like to suggest that we merge these articles (and possibly other related if they exist) into a 'single source of truth' article in line with our ongoing activities in this area.
c) The article on Binding covers an area very close to or overlapping with the article on Bodyjacking. When I wrote the former, I apparently spaced that the latter existed. The article also mentions 'Mindhacking' which is a bit different but in the same ballpark. Speaking editorially, do we want to look at more clearly defining what each of these terms are and how they differ from each other and/or look at combining these all together into a 'single source of truth' article?
d) Somewhere in here there is also the role of memetics (as OA uses the term). The idea that a mind can't be 'hacked' rather depends IMO on how one is defining that concept. Because brainwashing, religious conversion, and use of propaganda and related methods are all a RL thing when it comes to 'hacking' someone's mind without an actual physical connection (and without them necessarily wanting it to stop) even if they are not as effective as most fiction portrays. Given that OA presumes that 'memetics' has refined and extended these techniques to such a high level (and developed new ones) that it's basically a whole new thing in itself, it might also deserve a mention in relation to mindhacking/bodyjacking, even if only to separate it from these.
Back to the Bodyjacking article - Even if we leave it as a standalone - given its more provocative nature and the way the links are positioned, I am more inclined to think this article needs some wording tweaks to make it clearer what it is in the context of the other articles and how (or if) both the physical and non-physical elements of it operate in the context of the other articles mentioned above so as to avoid the issues raised by the OP.
Ok, I think that covers my view on this at this point.
Thoughts?
Todd
Getting back to the immediate issue - The current DNI article includes this section in the list of DNI functions:
Exokinesia: Alongside sensory information a DNI is capable of intercepting and stimulating motor signals in the body. This ability has two broad functions; the first is to allow the user to hand over partial or full control of their body to another sophont or program. This "autopilot" feature can be used to run skill modules, transport the body whilst lynking or ensure healthy resting positions are adopted whilst the user is accessing a virch. etc.
If a given DNI implementation has this feature in place (OA's focus on Diversity! Diversity!! Diversity!!! means it's a virtual certainty that not all instances of DNI tech include this capability, or design it the same way, whether due to local cultural custom/law or individual choice), then the issue of a lack of physical hardware to engage in bodyjacking control goes away because the hardware is actually there since it would have been grown in place when the user had their DNI installed (or when their DNI organs developed, assuming they come from a culture that has both engineered its citizens to grow such things naturally and to include Exokinesia in their particular implementation of it). So the 'hacking via software alone' part becomes possible because the software/hardware to do it already exists 'on site' and the act of hacking is one of accessing and subverting an existing system, not directly taking over the mind/body just by transmitting information alone in a vacuum (so to speak).
Looking toward the beginning of the DNI article, it currently talks in terms of DNI neural link hardware spreading throughout the Central Nervous System - which technically includes the parts needed to send control signals to the limbs, senses, etc. It does not explicitly state that motor control elements are included, but the 'implication factor' in the current wording is pretty strong.
If I had to make a judgement here, I'd say that maybe we could slightly modify/add to the article to explicitly include that neural linking includes motor control elements of the CNS. But really the current article already covers that if one takes 'central nervous system' literally and doesn't interpret it to just mean the sensory/informational aspects of DNI which most SF limits itself to. So it's a matter of whether or not we want to make something clearer, not of an actual lack or mis-statement in the current article. I'm not really leaning one way or the other on this.
Rynn, as the original author of the DNI article, what are your thoughts on this?
Ok - having said all that (and this is the 'more in a minute' stuff I mentioned earlier):
I do have somewhat stronger feelings about the current Bodyjacking article possibly needing some updates or even more. Specifically:
a) The article article contains two links to the same page on DNI, which is a different page from the one mentioned above. So it's currently out of our editorial standard and linking to a page that does not include the information on Exokinesia and more extensive explanation of CNS installation, etc. This definitely needs fixing - I can take care of that.
b) The DNI article it currently links to is on the shorter side and older, although has also been updated more recently. It deals almost entirely with details of DNI installation rather than functions. I would like to suggest that we merge these articles (and possibly other related if they exist) into a 'single source of truth' article in line with our ongoing activities in this area.
c) The article on Binding covers an area very close to or overlapping with the article on Bodyjacking. When I wrote the former, I apparently spaced that the latter existed. The article also mentions 'Mindhacking' which is a bit different but in the same ballpark. Speaking editorially, do we want to look at more clearly defining what each of these terms are and how they differ from each other and/or look at combining these all together into a 'single source of truth' article?
d) Somewhere in here there is also the role of memetics (as OA uses the term). The idea that a mind can't be 'hacked' rather depends IMO on how one is defining that concept. Because brainwashing, religious conversion, and use of propaganda and related methods are all a RL thing when it comes to 'hacking' someone's mind without an actual physical connection (and without them necessarily wanting it to stop) even if they are not as effective as most fiction portrays. Given that OA presumes that 'memetics' has refined and extended these techniques to such a high level (and developed new ones) that it's basically a whole new thing in itself, it might also deserve a mention in relation to mindhacking/bodyjacking, even if only to separate it from these.
Back to the Bodyjacking article - Even if we leave it as a standalone - given its more provocative nature and the way the links are positioned, I am more inclined to think this article needs some wording tweaks to make it clearer what it is in the context of the other articles and how (or if) both the physical and non-physical elements of it operate in the context of the other articles mentioned above so as to avoid the issues raised by the OP.
Ok, I think that covers my view on this at this point.
Thoughts?
Todd
Introverts of the World - Unite! Separately....In our own homes.