From the 1st link:
"To defeat the threat of tomorrow, we cannot afford to be reactive."

It's not a thread of tomorrow. Way too late for this.
Everybody seems totally willing to jettison their freedom and factual information in trade for almost any trivial convenience or entertainment.

Hence I say bring it. We're doomed anyway. Voluntary reduction to sheep isn't much of a demotion to anybody.

Examples of biodigital convergence should be provided.

1. pace makers
2. genetic manipulation to produce desired behavior or charateristics
3. wearable device such as timed insulin delivery
4. I would say targeted treatment for certain diseases

Are these good examples?

Examples of biodigital convergence should be provided.

1. pace makers
2. genetic manipulation to produce desired behavior or charateristics
3. wearable device such as timed insulin delivery
4. I would say targeted treatment for certain diseases

Are these good examples? — L'éléphant

Those are good examples as a starting point. But the technology has advanced to the point where computers can be integrating into DNA, to influence or control biological behaviour. here's a quote from the beginning of the last article I referenced in the op:

2.1 Synthetic Biology and CRISPR-Driven Integration
Synthetic biology has evolved from gene editing into full genome reprogramming, enabling scientists to design life from scratch. The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 and more recent CRISPR-3.0 systems has introduced precision tools capable of altering human DNA with algorithmic control (Doudna & Sternberg, 2022). When paired with AI-driven gene expression models, the possibility arises of dynamically editable DNA a codebase not just inherited, but upgradable. Researchers such as Venter (2023) have proposed synthetic “xenogenomes” for future human-machine interfaces, where artificial nucleotides interact with embedded processors to form hybridized bio-digital systems. This raises the possibility of DNA encoding both biological traits and computational logic. — Post-Human Biotechnologies: Toward Recursive Intelligence and Bio-Digital Identity

When paired with AI-driven gene expression models, the possibility arises of dynamically editable DNA a codebase not just inherited, but upgradable. Researchers such as Venter (2023) have proposed synthetic “xenogenomes” for future human-machine interfaces, where artificial nucleotides interact with embedded processors to form hybridized bio-digital systems. This raises the possibility of DNA encoding both biological traits and computational logic. — Post-Human Biotechnologies: Toward Recursive Intelligence and Bio-Digital Identity

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the ethical implications of this new form of technology called biodigital convergence. — Metaphysician Undercover

For ethical considerations - whether the editing is done on somatic or germ cells, the first thing we would want to see is regulation of research and the eventual applications of those findings. The risk associated with errors. And it is even riskier with the inherited genes.
We have been repeating the mantra the 'end justifies the means' -- we may be hoping for the betterment of humanity, but the process leading to it should be scrutinized carefully due to the possible "catastrophic" results.

Of course, we would like to see gene editing to address the disorders passed down from parents to child. This should be one of the primary reasons why we should support this kind of research. But what happens if errors were made?

And upgradable? Are we now headed to creating a new population of athletes that are semi-bionic? (Just an example)

The risk associated with errors. And it is even riskier with the inherited genes. — L'éléphant

I would say that it's not only riskier than inherited genes, which have a very small degree of risk due to billions of years of evolutionary execution, but it's also much riskier than GMOs. This is because the genetic modifications would be ongoing, at the discretion of the implanted AI. This is what the quoted articles calls " recursive intelligence", using biofeedback loops. From what I understand the digital implant modifies the genetics, then it modifies itself according to the effects of the changes. It appears like a trial and error process.

As trial and error, the probability of mistakes and bad outcomes is many degrees higher than the likelihood of good outcomes, so the thing must be closely monitored, caged to avoid letting loose the monster. However, since it is possible to make many many trials, the probability of discovering something good, eventually, is also quite high. The issue would be to define what "good" is in this context. Some would say, probably many would say, "we ought not interfere with God, therefore there is no possibility of good here", but that's an absolutist, exclusionary, and probably unrealistic approach. We already have GMOs.

So that Post-Human Biotechnologies article proposes "multi-layered control systems", " fail-safe genetic circuits, which activate kill-switches", and of course "human-in-the-loop-governance". But then the issue of "transparency" is brought up. And as these technologies become more popular and available, how can we expect that such principles will be observed, and enforced. And at 8.5 "The Fragility of Control in Recursive Systems". The issue being that "biology responds in unpredictable ways". This would produce effects which escape the design parameters. In other words, the implanted AI might not know how to respond. Some, perhaps the most dangerous effects, could completely escape detection. The highest danger is in the unknown.

As trial and error, the probability of mistakes and bad outcomes is many degrees higher than the likelihood of good outcomes, so the thing must be closely monitored, caged to avoid letting loose the monster. However, since it is possible to make many many trials, the probability of discovering something good, eventually, is also quite high. The issue would be to define what "good" is in this context. Some would say, probably many would say, "we ought not interfere with God, therefore there is no possibility of good here", but that's an absolutist, exclusionary, and probably unrealistic approach. We already have GMOs. — Metaphysician Undercover

The experimental stage should be as important as the application itself when considering ethics here. Yes, many many trials are possible, but at whose expense? What happens to the subjects when there's an error? So, the ethical inquiry must be a continuous examination all throughout the stages of the project.

I do sympathize with the notion of "we ought not to interfere with God" because the underlying sentiment in this is the naturally given attributes or properties of things in the world before man-made things become normal. There are actually efforts throughout the world to preserve the unmodified flora and fauna for the next generations who would otherwise not experience the wild origins of things.

The experimental stage should be as important as the application itself when considering ethics here. — L'éléphant

i think this technology should only be used for learning purposes. As such, the AI's role within the biological system would be primarily observational. There is a lot which can be learned from an embedded AI. For example, scientists are very limited in their capacity to actually observe the neurological working of a complex brain. A number of implanted AIs could greatly improve observational capacity. However, experimentation generally works through interaction. We design a very controlled way to elicit a response. Therefore the best learning potential would be derived from interaction. The issue with the AI I believe, is that if we want it to do its job we need to relinquish some control because it has to work so much faster than our ability to understand what it's doing.