171–180 of 233 posts
Probably more useful for interrogation than coding. Under current US law, can people entering the US be subjected to mind-reading?
So you'd need to force people to somehow think the same things they do when talking or typing, without actually performing those actions. If you can do that, why not just have them talk?
> The AI is no longer “other” > My AI is a natural extension of me. It feels like a sixth sense and another limb. I wonder about a problem, feel as though I’m literally surfing the web, see glimpses of the websites, get flashes of intuition about the problem, and ultimately derive the answer. We call this AI psychosis.
Help me understand... If one uses AI for anything but coding, or purely utilitarian purposes, they are psychotic? This is not intended to be provocative. I am asking sincerely. I have a lot of AI sessions, that I value enough to have reviewed multiple times, over months. And indeed, I explored much that I never would have without the AI, and enjoyed it. Even appreciated it. The bulk of my saved material is research,…
But to me what you are describing is pretty close to it. Because we know there was never any harmonic resonance and or "strange emergent state between two interlocutors".
I say this as somebody who uses the frontier models everyday for work. They are impressive and useful, but transformer intelligence is not at all like human intelligence, even if it superficially resembles human thinking. That should become more obvious the more you use them, not less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can't make a neural interface worth a damn without cracking open a few skulls. I immediately thought, ironically, your neurology wrote that with a computer and HN humans' neurologies read it with computers.
The whole point of neural interfaces is to bypass the default wiring. If what's there in the bone stock I/O plane was sufficient, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> The AI is no longer “other” > My AI is a natural extension of me. It feels like a sixth sense and another limb. I wonder about a problem, feel as though I’m literally surfing the web, see glimpses of the websites, get flashes of intuition about the problem, and ultimately derive the answer. We call this AI psychosis.
The article's topic is brain to AI interfaces. She mentions this quote as a "vision" from 2035, where not only can thoughts inform AI but AI can respond in thought too.
When we get used to a good tool it becomes an extension of ourselves.
How is this AI psychosis? Is it that it's very unrealistic for such an interface to be created in the next 10 years? Or is it that there's a fear of letting AI interfere with one's thoughts lest they lose themselves?
Hmm...how do you stop private thoughts from reaching the LLM? Suddenly you can be prosecuted for thinking the "wrong" thoughts?
That's easily solved! The Conduit® Thinkerface® Pro Band will contain a small 90B dense local model that pre-screens your Conduit® NeuroTokens® stream for compliance against the Conduit® Acceptable Usage Policy applicable for your region and subscription tier. If non-compliance is detected you'll be promptly notified via a small current applied to the Conduit® ThinkRight® Human Training Electrodes embedded within you…
Talking and listening are a really still a big mystery. And thinking is deep underground beneath our understanding.
We barely understand what we are doing when we are doing any of this. Personally I think I under stand what I'm doing when I'm writing much better than what I'm doing when I'm listening.
I'd find that a little surprising, except I've been doing it all my life. I barely have any memories from before I talk, and I have loads more memories from after I learned to read.
Learning to draw and play a musical instrument deepened all this. As did having good, close friends, and partners. I expect having children, which I haven't done, is even more deepening.
The thing is, all these words are just that: words. Very loosey goosey and they change from person to person just as the communicators come from different experiences. And tomorrows me often has a very different outlook than yesterday's me.
I'm not surprised that I can't read the mind of tomorrows me but I'm always a little shocked when I realize I can't read the mind of yesterday's me.
What was I thinking!
I can easily read that blog post as a description of what might come to pass. It might very well not connect very well with us now because, well, we haven't had the experiences yet. Telepathy might mean something very different after we've had experiences with the new technology.
My grandmother, who was born in 1893, often told me about how the world changed radically and almost imperceptibly during the first half of the 20th century. She lived to be 97, and she once said she wondered if would be possible to talk about the, then, present to her younger self. The words she used at the time of the conversation, would not communicate very well because of the lack of common experiences.
I think Shannon had something to say about that. Information is something new and unexpected, but you need the expected to frame it. Give it a foundation.
I'm now in my late 60s, and I can totally relate to what my grandmother was saying. The main difference is that we are now accelerating much faster.
2026 me would have a hard time explaining things I'm doing with AI to 2023 me.
I think that 2027 might be a bit early for some of the things the blog post is describing. But, come the day, I might just shake my head and wonder what in the heck I was thinking.
Beyond all the other more salient objections one might have with this pitch, there is just the very practical fact that there really isn't enough signal from "noninvasive" sensors to get the sort of data they are promising. It's been explained to me by neuroscientists I respect that EEGs and friends are like trying to listen in on a conversation happening on center ice from the parking lot of the arena. You can maybe…
Technically fMRI is noninvasive; it is just a bit inconvenient for everyday use.
> The AI is no longer “other” > My AI is a natural extension of me. It feels like a sixth sense and another limb. I wonder about a problem, feel as though I’m literally surfing the web, see glimpses of the websites, get flashes of intuition about the problem, and ultimately derive the answer. We call this AI psychosis.
Without commenting on how realistic it is, I will point out that if you took the average person on the street taking a call on their bluetooth earbuds, and send them back just ~2 decades, they would look like delusional people talking to themselves.
I suspect a lot of the weirdness we see today would be normalized in the future, even if somewhat annoying (like BrainRot.)
1. Superhuman AI is inevitable.
2. Writing will become a bottleneck to communicate effectively with it.
3. Higher communication bandwidth would let us keep up with the machines.
4. Therefore with higher bandwidth humans could stay part of AI decision processes.
5. That makes it more “human”, as humans would be kept in-the-loop without becoming a bottleneck to be worked around.
6. If you let superintelligence write into your brain, that lets you merge with the machine.