[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.1027

File: 1563885104921.jpg (130.91 KB, 1116x591, 372:197, Elon_Musk_Image.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Electronic threads, thinner than human hair, get robotically inserted into your brain via holes bored directly into your skull by a laser.

>The goal? Simple. To "achieve a symbiosis with artificial intelligence."

Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/neuralink-elon-musk-silicon-valley-promises/594316/

Elon Musk (pictured) is at it again. This time, he's aiming to transform individuals into something somewhat more than human. The product timeline is a matter of months, apparently, and not years.

Would you volunteer for such a thing, yourself? Is it appealing to possibly control all manner of electronics with mere thought? Or does the whole thing appear creepy?

Putting Musk's specific project aside, is mankind evolving into something more than human like this inevitable?

 No.1032

>>1027
I wouldn't want to be the beta tester for that kind of thing. But give it a few decades to work out the bugs and perfect the tech and i'm down. I spend so much of my time behind a computer screen anyway, getting to do it as an artificial consciousness just seems rather efficient and expedient.

 No.1033

File: 1563906201761.gif (1.25 MB, 600x338, 300:169, 1514864.gif) ImgOps Google

I forget how unfairly critical I'm allowed to be of poorly thought out ideas on this board.

I don't really see it as creepy or appealing. More probably it would be inconvenient and prone to infection and inflammation.

As for the second part, it depends on if you want to call "evolving" a purely genetic phenomenon or not. If yes then obviously not and that's a boring answer. So no, evolution is not purely genetic. I wouldn't consider a human augmented with a hat an evolution of what it means to be human, or a human augmented with a hat and a gun and kneepads evolutionary either, so I'll skip straight over all that incremental stuff to something unrecognizable. This human no longer gather's information about it's world through tactile stimulation. This human no longer consumes what we'd recognize as food through what we'd recognize as a mouth. Communication is no longer through words and manipulation is no longer by hands. For that... it's hard for me to say. I don't deal in hypotheticals super well so I'd have to see how people react to that. Perhaps, inside our metal shells, we will be the same. Or without human constraints we will be something different.

 No.1034

>>1027
>Would you volunteer for such a thing, yourself?
Given the dismal track track record of cybersecurity in medical devices and supply chain risks from any thing coming from China: definitely not.  I don't want my brain getting hacked.

When the technology is mature though and the supply chain properly protected, I'd certainly like a discrete-math coprocessor with some persistent storage embedded in my skull.  

 No.1043

Musk is literally just an investor who larps as a genius inventor and they gets too much credit and is taken too seriously for flimsy ideas, hype, and crap like his theory that we are all living in a computer simulation.

God, I am so sick of this narcissistic fraud.

 No.1044


 No.1045

File: 1563938854733.jpg (372.95 KB, 714x1000, 357:500, 1377322261029.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I like this idea.

But, y'know, if you're someone who's ever looked at anything Musk has ever done, if he says it's going to be a matter of "months" you probably won't see anything come of it for at least a year and a half.

I'm big on transhumanism, and I like this idea as a whole, but I wouldn't volunteer to be a test subject for it, even paid. This is the sort of thing that starts pretty badly and doesn't get better for a while, so I'd prefer to wait, myself.

Whether or not this sort of thing is inevitable is kind of a nebulous question in and of itself. I don't think anything proposed by humans to advance humans is inevitable. It all depends on what humans want to do going forward, not just in the present but in the future. Nothing like this is inevitable unless humans make it that way.

 No.1046

I would want this to be on the market for at least a few years first to see how people utilize it and any possible side-effects.

I would also need to be 100% sure that no one could use it to alter affect my brain from the outside, which if it is interfacing with electronics wirelessly, I don't think would be possible. I'm certainly not going to be an early adopter of this, assuming Musk isn't just blowing smoke up our asses.

 No.1051

My own $0.02 is that I don't want to be brainjacked even if time has passed and the technology becomes reasonably safe. It still feels too creepy and prone to possible problems.

 No.1125

>>1027

While it would theoretically be useful, it's going to come with a lot of problems, as with any new technology.

I'm not sure that humans could productively utilize this technology much until we can edit out of our DNA the counter-productive elements of our psyche, but i suppose that goes for all kinds of technologies...

 No.1128

>>1125

Why would we need to be able to edit our DNA for this to be useful?

Also, a lot of those "counter-productive" elements of the psyche are really only counter-productive in certain context. In other context they are vital to survival.

Also, what would really be necessary for this technology to be useful would be a much better understanding of precisely how information is actually stored in the brain. Neuroscientists have a rough idea of how it does this, but not a very precise one, and it's still the subject of a lot of research.

 No.1130

>>1128

because humans didn't evolve to use advanced technology and computers and such efficiently.

just look @ the internet, porn, social media. Porn is addictive due to a primitive thought process involving novelty, and is only really beneficial due to the scarcity of such partners, which porn eliminates according to this region of the brain.

Social media companies exploit primitive thought processes by designing their apps to be as additive as possible, triggering as much of a dopamine response in their users as they can - far more than would naturally occur.

>Also, a lot of those "counter-productive" elements of the psyche are really only counter-productive in certain context. In other context they are vital to survival.

But technology is designed to exploit them for other purposes, causing extremely unhealthy behavior.

>
Why would we need to be able to edit our DNA for this to be useful?

If we edit the DNA, we can develop better thought processes that are adapted to using tech in the most efficent way possible. We optimize from both ends - not just the technological side, but we're not even optimizing from the technological side right now - just optimizing for profit. And the more advanced technology becomes, the more care people have to take in using it appropriately... with great power comes great responsibility...

 No.1136

>>1130
>because humans didn't evolve to use advanced technology and computers and such efficiently.

Humans didn't evolve to use a lot of technologies that they've been using for centuries, millenia even. Instead, we've had to counter-balance the draw backs of that fact with things like cultural evolution or changes to other cultural institutions, like the education for instance, which kept such technologies far more of a boon than a drawback.

 No.1137

oops, hit "post" before I meant to.

>>1130
>just look @ the internet, porn, social media. Porn is addictive due to a primitive thought process involving novelty, and is only really beneficial due to the scarcity of such partners, which porn eliminates according to this region of the brain.

Porn is not an advanced technology. It's been around for millennia in some form or another, and after printing presses were invented/discovered (depending on where in the world and in history you are) porn has been available in mass, typically as part of the underground culture of any established culture, or as high up as the "low culture" (i.e. working class) of those same established cultures.

>Social media companies exploit primitive thought processes by designing their apps to be as additive as possible, triggering as much of a dopamine response in their users as they can - far more than would naturally occur.

Social media companies are exploiting techniques discovered by traditional media and casinos long long ago to attract attention. This isn't a matter of anything fundamentally new to technology that doesn't or hadn't also occured with other forms of mass media in past centuries. It also has nothing to do with something intrinsic to how technology in general is designed but more to do with some specific applications of that technology. Remember, a lot of social media is just websites, a lot of social media is just applications of things like relational database technology with a bit of a spin on old bulletin board systems.

Technically, this website we are using right now is considered social media.

And as for dopamine responsed, well, considering that social media does not use a drug of some sort to artificially raise dopamine levels betond a user's own natural capacities, the dopamine response one has to it is about as natural as one can get. But again, this is not a matter of how the core technology underneath (i.e. internet protocol and world wide web application layers) is designed but rather how it's used by these social media companies. And they're not even exploiting much about how those underlying technologies work as much as they are exploiting the fact that the accessibility to those services is a lot cheaper and faster than before.

>But technology is designed to exploit them for other purposes, causing extremely unhealthy behavior.

Well, first that is oversimplifying it. Things like relational databases (essentially the core of what Facebook actually is) are not designed specifically to exploit the human psyche, neither was internet protocol, neither was html, php, or python or any other technology used on the back end of these services. This is almost like pointing to yellow journalism in the early 20th century and using that as evidence that the printing press or photography or what have you were designed to exploit the less rational parts of the human psyche or pointing to exploitative grindhouse films of the 1970s as evidence that film was designed explicitly for the sake of lurid exploitation of humans more prurient interest.

>If we edit the DNA, we can develop better thought processes that are adapted to using tech in the most efficent way possible. We optimize from both ends - not just the technological side, but we're not even optimizing from the technological side right now - just optimizing for profit.

Wouldn't that suggest that the actual core of the problem be how we incentivize the development of new technologies?

And since that is what is primarily what is optimized for, how could we expect that the technology for editing DNA not be optimized for profit but instead for "efficiency"?

Also, I don't think you really picked up on my point earlier.  The "counter productive" aspects of the psyche are often the product of one function being useful and vital in one context but not others. This would imply that trying to "edit out" those aspects may unintentionally also edit out some of those other more vital functions.

Like prejudice for example. It can hurt other people, and oftentimes oneself as well, and it's certainly exploited for profit, but it's essentially just pattern recognition. Everyone has prejudices because we recognize patterns, not always with 100% accuracy and sometimes we recognize patterns that don't really exist or sometimes we only recognize a simplistic pattern rather than recognizing the whole pattern as it actually is, but it happens because of our capacity for pattern recognition

 No.1138


 No.1160

>>1138

I don't think that contradicts anything I said.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]