Concerning future: "lace", e.g. mind-computer integrations.

[FoxtArt]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ural-implant1/

I've been tracking "lace" for awhile, and if there's anything that will ruin society, it's this. Basically they have been working on a brain to computer interface, intended to be integrated with AI, and with neuron integrations into the tens of thousands.

It's cast as a solution to all sorts of disabilities to make it sound savory, but then they'll market it to anyone (which Elon openly admits). Imagine some of those movies where someone can learn a subject - or at least have knowledge of a subject at a whim - almost telepathically. Sounds badass right? How could you NOT buy that? So, will this become some savvy party trick, or a deep rooted problem?

Think it'll be your choice to have the procedure? Let me ask.... if 30% of your coworkers go and get a "lasik" style procedure that makes them inordinately superior in all regards in the workplace and intellectually..... do you still have a choice to have the procedure? What about when 80% of your former coworkers have the procedure and you're unemployed. Still have the choice?

The marketing and deployment of this tech in the near future will create an unsustainable rift between those that "have" it, and those that don't.

Side note:
While I'm not religious , I've always found the religious zealots surrounding "666" to be amusing in their paranoia over credit cards and SSN's and other crap. From a purley mathmatical perspective, The number is unique in the number system across multiple bases in one way because it may represent a logarithmic equation. Let me break that down for you, because I ran a simulation on this once.
1+2+3 = 6
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+19+11 = 66 [corrected]
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20 +21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28+29+30+31+32+33+34+35+36 = 666 [corrected]

The pattern stops there and does not continue at [6666] nor does it exist in any three repeating* digit number in other base systems that I've tested (e.g. octal, hexadecimal, etc). A "mark on the hand" could aptly be interpreted as physical ability, and a "mark on the head" could aptly be interpreted as mental ability; anyone who interprets it as a "mark" apparently ignores the part that in essence, states not to interpret it literally.

So do I believe that "prophecy"? Not exactly, nor did I pull it from any website or crackpot, I simply programmed a few simulations out of curiosity many years back. I keep an open mind and study everything. So whether or not that is true, that's irrelevant to the conclusion of the serious implications of this technology. I do predict a lot of religious zealots will be fully embracing this technology when it comes out [no marks on my hand or forehead ma!], despite the irony of the situation. And I think society will be fuuuuuucked like nothing ever seen in history if this becomes even half as ubiquitous as smartphones, as this will create a class rift of a kind never seen in history.

On top of that, peoples knowledge would be mostly crutched against immediate database access (e.g. google) rather than actual knowledge and wisdom. The ramifications of that are a highly controllable populace that can be easily manipulated to maintain the position of the sources of that data..... e.g. leading to homogeneous thought.

[Gman]

Science still doesn't understand how much of the human body functions, especially the brain.

Building computers is not a perfect process, and attaching those to humans that aren't wired by any blueprinted design...

This would not go well.

Elon Musk is the new PT Barnum.

[Skip]

Matter of time IMHO. I/O has been the real bottleneck since the smartphone. The real question is how many humans could utilize this to create value? Entertainment and basic education is a slam dunk, sure.

There could be all sorts of unintended consequences.

Interesting but the numbers are off a bit...




Next closest result to 6666 is 6670 ending at 115.

[FoxtArt]

Next closest result to 6666 is 6670 ending at 115.

Obviously, sequential numbers added up to something will be a total, but I'm talking about a single, repeated digit, the pattern stops there. (e.g. it doesn't apply to 444, 77, 99, 6666(hex, decimal, or octal, or anything else), etc. etc.


ETA: Thanks for pointing out the math being off, my memory had gone off and added two too many repetitions to 66 and three to little to 666. Corrected now.

[FoxtArt]

Even if the first implementation fails, it will eventually succeed, though, in the not distant future. There are already primitive interfaces with varying success, used for e.g. blind patients and whatnot.

Due to the way the brain works, I suspect to be fully successful with training the brain to integrate the new I/O (input output) it would have to be implanted when we still have neuroplasticity (e.g. children). If that's done, I have little doubt that a brain wouldn't wire itself to accomodate and process the new "sense". While older brains are pretty set in their ways, all sorts of studies have shown brains with neuroplasticity can adapt to do things they were never intended, such as echolocation. And again, existing implants with sparse electrodes do work now.

One likely feature of especially an early implantation is the capacity for telepathic communication. Basically communication of thoughts/speech concepts could be transmitted and obtained through the neural interface wireless MUCH faster than e.g. orally or typing something out, and it wouldn't be subject to misinterpretation or normal problems (hearing). So imagine a work setting, where enough people have the capacity to communicate a whole meeting telepathically in 1/40th of the time and arrive at a conclusion, as opposed to a normal, orally spoken meeting.

Why would they actually talk to "oral" humans, or have them participate, slowing down the whole productivity - unmodified people would seem disabled in context.

[Skip]

The human mind has limitations. Can the human consciousness coexist and function with another "voice?" Would that lead to mental disorders? How would a person have self?

As strictly I/O this can work but, similar to computer, you'd have to find an available interface. Sight, hearing, taste, smell can all be hacked. But can tech put those thing into a human's mind?

For example, I could have a foreign language translated for me just using I/O, but it would be far more difficult to put the meaning of foreign words in my mind. That's a big leap. I think to get there, they would have to get to the core of human consciousness/soul.

Communication through thoughts is entirely possible just using I/O.

[FoxtArt]

That might be true for an established brain, but we have to rewind a little bit and think what the electrodes are doing: passing electrical impulses to neurons. Your neurons train to interpret whatever the hell those impulses mean, in part by taking in information from the other senses. This is already what a developing mind (e.g. infant) is doing with their sensory input and why we have to relearn how to walk/talk/eat after major brain trauma (stroke).

It may be a near impossible task for an adult - such as when lifetime- blind people have their sight medically restored. [They can can see, no physical reason why they can't see, but their brain can't make sense of the images so they remain essentially blind]. But, at the right stage of life, I don't doubt that the brain would accommodate any new "sense" no different that it accommodates all sorts of new sports and forms of mobility that it never was built for... like those scooters with bearings in the middle mounted on two castors, or unicycles.

So the electrodes aren't implanting thoughts, they are providing consistent electrical impulses to anyone who has the implants. Individual interpretation of those impulses and individual success rates would vary a lot - just as we have people that are MUCH better at certain activities than others. E.g. if your brain already understood certain impulses to be representations of english words, an AI first translating foreign language to English and then passing it to the implant would work all the same. (ETA - and I think that's what you're talking about with purely I/O)

ETA: The self question is definitely of interest. I suspect though, that the brain would learn to handle it in the existing auditory centers, e.g. you would be able to tune it out using existing mechanisms to ignore all the voices you hear "analog". And for this same reason, you might actually "hear" them perceived separately from your own inner voice, as we do when we hear people talk. How we would differentiate between all the voices, or rather how our brains would interpret what they use to differentiate, would be.... interesting.

[BladesNBarrels]

60 Minutes did an episode with the billionaire in China that finances ideas in Artificial Intelligence.
He doesn't think computers can be "taught" or can "learn" to do more than make an operation more efficient, mostly due to large quantities of data that is available to review.
He is the inventor of facial recognition software and tracking of everything each person in China buys, does, likes, watches, etc.
With that vast quantity of data, the program predicts how an individual shops, learns, reacts.
They interviewed a teen-age girl in China and asked if she has any concerns about the total lack of privacy.
She could not comprehend how it would be a problem.

Well, I guess I am lost for words.

[FoxtArt]

He doesn't think computers can be "taught" or can "learn" to do more than make an operation more efficient, mostly due to large quantities of data that is available to review.

For the forseeable future I'd agree with that, AI isn't actually "artificial intelligence" it's a complex automated deep-processing technique on single sets of data. However, I wouldn't say never. We're only 80 years into computers, and we're this far. Now we have qbit computers in development (we're at maybe a dozen qbits? I forget), which even a 300 qbit computer could theoretically simulate every atom in the universe, - the processing power grows logarithmically with each qbit. I don't think we'll ever be able to know if a "computer" obtains any level of consciousness, as we have no way to measure that, but I suspect at some point they can start broadly self-learning to certain extents, especially as constrained by future software packages.

Of course, the limitation is more in our current imagination for software and integrations than it is with hardware imho.... the hardware could already do it now.

As an aside, it's a little off topic as a brain integration doesn't need to rely on a "real" AI to be effective - just the data access that computers can provide is a huge advantage, e.g. instant google in your head. You could obtain information about as fast as you needed it, without having to learn anything.

[FoxtArt]

Building off Skips point:

I wonder if our inner voice wouldn't speed up with that sixth sense? In other words, we have an inner voice that we "think" in that roughly paces at how fast we would talk IRL. For those that don't know, this inner voice is critical to our cognizance, and is based upon our understanding of our spoken language. Prior to them teaching deaf people ASL, they thought deaf people were retarded - they weren't adequately teaching them any language, so they had no inner voice to think within, and so in many ways, they were retarded prior to ASL. [so, fun fact, contrary to your inner voice, a deaf person more appropriately has inner hands ]

This brings me to a point I didn't think of. Is our inner voice paced by our oral language? If we learned super fast telepathic communication, would our inner voice then be paced much faster and in the same medium?