Just because a system exists, it doesn't mean you decide how it will be used.
I imagine a future with intent-reading devices that powerful people use to scan the plebs, but never the other way round. Because privacy is sacred, you know... but if you want to get a job, you need to "consent" to having your intentions scanned. Some churches require regular scans of their believers, but this is okay, because if they want to be saved, they "consent", too. And abusive parents scan their children, no consent required there.
Getting from here to there seems quite natural, as opposed to getting from here to "powerful people get scanned", which naturally the powerful people would oppose.
Churches could ask you for your Facebook passwords now, and they don't. So could employers, and while this has been an occasional problem, most of them still don't. This theory seems to imply that they would.
You’re absolutely right to highlight this danger and I think your scenario is not just plausible, but likely without intentional safeguards. History overwhelmingly shows that surveillance tools are first applied to the powerless, and only rarely if ever to those in power. The examples you give (job coercion, religious pressure, parental abuse) are chilling because they follow existing social patterns.
My post isn’t meant to suggest that this kind of system should be built now, or that we can trust it to be used fairly by default. Instead, I’m trying to explore the uncomfortable possibility that such technology might become inevitable not because it’s ideal, but because it emerges out of escalating demand for justice, transparency, or control.
If that future arrives, we’ll face a fork in the road:
I’m not claiming that’s easy or even likely. I’m only arguing that if this future is coming, we should start defining how to resist its default dystopia and imagine better uses before someone else builds it without asking.
The other much harder path would require designing systems where those in power are monitored first and most strictly, under rules they can’t tamper with.
Who monitors the monitors? Who decides the decision rules?
Haha, I get why it might sound like that but no, this isn’t Claude making a quiet pitch for AI overlordship.
This is a human wrestling with a future that feels increasingly likely:
A world where mind-reading tech or something close exists, and the people who control it aren’t exactly known for their restraint or moral clarity.
If anything, this post is a preemptive “oh no” not a blueprint for AI governance, but a thought experiment asking:
“How bad could this get if we don’t talk about it early?”
And is there any version of it that doesn’t default to dystopia?
So, definitely not a bid for AI rule. More like a “can we please not sleepwalk into this with no rules” plea.
What if there existed a system—rooted in advanced neuroscience and AI—that could privately monitor human intent? A system that didn’t invade your thoughts for no reason, but quietly, passively scanned for signs of dangerous or criminal intent and acted only when thresholds were met.
Imagine a future where:
What could such a system look like—and should it exist?
Let’s imagine the world in 100–200 years, where neuroscience, ethics, and artificial intelligence have evolved enough to support the following infrastructure:
Each individual wears or has embedded a non-invasive neural interface (e.g., nanotech-enabled implant or external wearable) that reads and encodes brain signals—not as full thoughts or memories, but as structured data expressing intent and emotion.
Not all people are monitored equally. The system operates on a “responsibility gradient”:
This ensures the powerful are more accountable, reducing systemic corruption and abuse.
All escalated intent logs are recorded in a global decentralized blockchain-like system, forming an immutable Intent Ledger. This ledger:
Each log includes timestamped metadata and is anonymized unless legally escalated.
Rather than a centralized human agency, all flagged events are reviewed by a tamper-proof ethical AI trained on global law, philosophy, and contextual ethics:
If intervention is warranted, the system notifies appropriate legal or peacekeeping authorities based on jurisdiction and severity.
Despite its capabilities, the system enforces the following privacy rules:
No more unsolved crimes. No manipulation of courts. Intent is visible and verifiable. Innocence and guilt become clear. Victims are heard; perpetrators are exposed.
Deceptive business practices, political double-dealing, and money laundering become impossible. Trust in institutions could be rebuilt.
People in positions of leadership, influence, or wealth are no longer shielded by legal teams or PR machines. Their real motives are visible and measurable.
Wars, genocides, and extremist plots could be identified in planning phases. Governments can’t hide atrocities behind propaganda.
Imagine voting for a leader whose intentions are transparent—not just campaign slogans, but true policy intent.
Even if intent is only flagged under extreme conditions, the mere possibility of being monitored can lead to:
Privacy is not just about hiding wrongdoing—it's about being human.
Thoughts are messy. Daydreams, intrusive thoughts, emotional reactions, sarcasm, and dark humor can easily be misunderstood by an algorithm.
False positives could ruin lives.
If the system is hacked, manipulated, or subtly biased from its inception:
Even if incorruptible, a rigid, inflexible AI can’t understand context, culture, or moral gray areas. If it controls enforcement, justice could become automated injustice.
Who builds the thresholds for what counts as “dangerous intent”? Who defines ethics globally? There is no universal moral code.
What happens when no one can lie, cheat, or manipulate others without being detected?
Would love still mean the same if the person’s intent was constantly visible?
This thought experiment doesn't advocate for immediate implementation—but it does ask:
What level of safety, fairness, and justice would be worth trading for our privacy?
And could there be a way to achieve such a future without losing the essence of being human?
Maybe one day, when the stakes are high enough, humanity will choose transparency—not out of force, but from necessity. Until then, it's worth deeply exploring both the power and peril of a world where intent cannot hide.