Elon Musk’s Neuralink wants to boost the brain to keep up with AI

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 27, 2017, 9:48 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #13

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did 1880s people have to merge with assembly lines? I think you're being fairly dramatic and too "/r/futurology" here. The whole point of technology is to create tools to make our lives easier, not to become tools. People won't desire this and pushing this kind of pressure on people seems like a recipe for revolt against the capitalist system that has thus far provided so much wealth. The assembly line works for us,…

No, but like with any other performance enchanting utility it's going to be effectively peer pressure. If AI+human will be better than just AI people will "merge" with it at that point if it's a true AI you might as well be a different species to them as you'll likely won't be able to even communicate with them after a while.

Post by mongmong » Mon, Mar 27, 2017, 9:54 PM UTC

jameslk wrote: post #32

I've had a casual curiosity on why these billionaires like Musk who seem to care about world wide problems such as AI aren't working to solve the imminent issues with global warming. I'm not talking about reducing fossil fuels, but perhaps coming up with solutions with their resources that addresses a world that isn't so habitable by life in the future. I don't know enough about global warming to know why this might…

Post by zeroxfe » Mon, Mar 27, 2017, 9:56 PM UTC

ajobaccount2017 wrote: post #38

8.2 A Master Programmer passed a novice programmer one day. The Master noted the novice's preoccupation with a hand-held computer game. "Excuse me," he said, "may I examine it?" The novice bolted to attention and handed the device to the Master. "I see that the device claims to have three levels of play: Easy, Medium, and Hard," said the Master. "Yet every such device has another level of play, where the device seeks…

Post by eon1 » Mon, Mar 27, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

cannonpr wrote: post #26

cafebabbe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that leisure could be any kind of work you want. The distinction is not leisure vs work. It's freedom vs. constraint.

I appreciate that, however I feel constraints give meaning to a task, you might argue that I can self impose them, I will argue that I wish those constraints to be imposed by society or by the conditions needed to advance science. To do that, eventually as AI's come online, I will have to stop being human.

Post by M_Grey » Mon, Mar 27, 2017, 9:59 PM UTC

zeroxfe wrote: post #45

ajobaccount2017 wrote: post #38

8.2 A Master Programmer passed a novice programmer one day. The Master noted the novice's preoccupation with a hand-held computer game. "Excuse me," he said, "may I examine it?" The novice bolted to attention and handed the device to the Master. "I see that the device claims to have three levels of play: Easy, Medium, and Hard," said the Master. "Yet every such device has another level of play, where the device seeks…

Humans are typically the weak link in a security strategy... so I think this would make them harder to hack.