211–220 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget it's not "the platforms" doing this, it's people like you and me, maybe even people reading this message. We, they, are building this, and don't care about anything as long the paycheck comes. This is the reality.
Speak for yourself, I would rather clean toilets for a living than work on these mind-destroying technologies
I’m always skeptical of these papers that claim to read minds, because my understanding is current brain reading technology is very coarse (Neuralink is SOTA, very invasive, and only 1-3 thousand electrodes for 55-70 billion of neurons; fMRI is much worse) and neural networks generate plausible images and videos from noise. Indeed, the example videos don’t seem particularly stimulating, just random.
This is very similar to last week with that mind reading startup thing. Please read the paper before commenting. This is a tool to help researchers in figuring out what different parts of the brain are actually for with less experimenter bias contamination of “well we think maybe it’s about this so let’s show it video of x to see”. The essence runs on having someone sit in a scanner for a couple hours watching all so…
As others on Telegram have said: automated search for visual superstimuli likely leads to bad outcomes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story) Also: one of the V3A animations reminds me loosely of things I saw when I was a kid, at night, shortly before I slept (though my experience then was more circular).
Hypnagogic hallucinations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia