Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SvetlanaButosky t1_jagrxk2 wrote

Reply to comment by DocHickory in The imperfect translation between thoughts and language by LifeOfAPancake

This is why we must have Elon Musk's brain chip, it could give us direct telepathy, lol.

could also give us direct insanity. lol

−14

thegoldengoober t1_jagsdll wrote

You're being down voted because you mentioned Elon Musk I'm sure, but brain computer interfacing will surely revolutionize communication.

14

snellickers t1_jah8gpd wrote

Oh totally. It’s an amazing idea to put your consciousness in the hands of plutocrats like Elon Musk. I can’t think of any downsides to this.

7

fenomenomsk t1_jah965a wrote

Brain to brain interface maybe, I can't imagine brain-computer giving anything but the data we already have (words)

2

Catatonic27 t1_jahawa2 wrote

But imagine that, but at the speed of thought instead of the speed of fingers or eyes.

Arguably we already do have brain-to-computer interfaces they're just high latency and low bandwidth.

3

fenomenomsk t1_jahkss8 wrote

I personally have huge concerns regarding man-in-the-middle that is computer. After all, the end goal of such a communication is transfering information from person to person. Having a computer in the middle will lead to such a massive array of problems like tampering with the input, data analysis (this reeks of never before-seen privacy issues), and maybe even mind control. All that simply because there is a programmable interface between two people. I see brain-computer interface only useful as a necessary evil and an intermediary step for brain-brain interface.

4

Catatonic27 t1_jahoxmk wrote

Your concerns are well-founded I think. But I think it's interesting to point out that most of those concerns are already playing out RIGHT NOW sans literal mind control. The difference between a cybernetic implant and carrying an internet-connected phone around all day is merely a difference in speed of access. It takes you a few seconds to pull out your phone and type in a query or respond to a notification, the implant would just do it faster.

And we are absolutely already seeing the issues you mention like tampering or interception of inputs and using massive data analysis to decide who sees which outputs, it's a mess. And the end result isn't exactly mind-control, but I think it's fair to say that human behavior has and almost certainly still is being shaped by our technology and algorithms for better or worse. The difference isn't one of kind, but one of scale.

So optimistically I hope you're right about the brain-to-brain interface being the end-goal, but realistically I really don't see that happening. There's too much to be "gained" by centralization, it's too enticing. It's like trying to get people to stick to walkie-talkies when they already know smartphones exist.

1

AceTrainerStorme t1_jah2hyo wrote

Don't want to be that guy, but I'm pretty sure Elon musk's brain chip has no chance of ever working (according to the founders who quit once it was bought) plus they are basically running out of monkeys to torture test on

13

[deleted] t1_jah42kd wrote

[deleted]

0

AceTrainerStorme t1_jch9i10 wrote

Yes I do know the hundreds claim is false, I do also know however that Elon musk company can no longer acquire more monkeys from the source they did and the company sited "ethical" reasons

1

Canilickyourfeet t1_jah4qoj wrote

I'm curious, was death a direct correlation between chip insertion and time of death? Or is it like Covid reporting, where if someone dies that happens to have the virus, it's deemed a covid death?

If a monkey dies as a result of environmental factors, stress, diet, etc, do they still count it as death brought on by chip insertion?

−5

wow-signal t1_jah18pt wrote

not gonna happen. we have no clue how the mind works

2

DocHickory t1_jaobk1n wrote

The only chip I'd have any interest in is embedded in a cookie.

1