Brain-Machine Interface Technology (Neuralink, BrainGate)

Between this, nano-tech and genetic engineering, the world is going to be a very different place in the 22nd century.

Whether it's a better or worse world...well, I guess that remains to be seen.

Edited by M84 on Jul 22nd 2019 at 12:33:22 AM

I think we are the ones that get to decide which it is.

The key factors will be a) what people are willing to give up in exchange for the benefits, b) whether they are properly informed of what they are giving up, and c) how long it takes for government regulation to catch up.

Lets do some high level speculation. Imagine that everyone not only has a radio reciever in their head, but a small server as well. That would mean that you could form an impromptu "internet" with the people around you. With enough range and population density you could entirely avoid commercial ISP's. What if everyone had the right apps in their head to create content in real time, without distracting themselves? What effect might this have on the local economy, popular culture, interpersonal relationships?

I can see the news articles about how someone got hit by a car ^note (With self-driving that won't be as much of a problem, but that's a separate topic.) or walked into an open manhole while head-editing (headiting?) their latest Youtube video.

As for the "interpersonal Internet" idea, I would think you'd need some sort of public infrastructure to manage all of those connections, as the power requirement for that kind of broadcasting would mean everyone would have to walk around with battery packs. Also, you'd need some uniform standard to ensure compatible communications.

Still, in the far-flung future, we might have such powerful communication systems that humanity becomes effectively a Hive Mind, with every idea shared in a global cloud of knowledge. The biggest problem might be retaining a "private self" apart from this cloud.

As for relationships, think about how dating might change if you could know exactly what the other person is thinking whenever they wanted you to.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 22nd 2019 at 10:26:47 AM

Women already have that—it would only change things for the guys.

ok?

Hah. Women have the need for deceit wired into their interpersonal relationships from a very early age. Stark truth in every communication would be as horrible for them as for men. But that's vastly off-topic.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 22nd 2019 at 12:11:00 PM

I...I was really hoping we wouldn't be going there. It's really off-topic.

Edited by M84 on Jul 23rd 2019 at 12:12:45 AM

My apologies. Here is a primer on computer-mind-interfaces. It makes an interesting distinction between invasive and noninvasive approaches.

Edited by DeMarquis on May 20th 2022 at 12:15:23 PM

So, how long until the hackers start hacking people?

Edited by dRoy on Jul 22nd 2019 at 9:50:29 PM

Well, the main thing that makes that difficult is that human neural patterns are "hard wired"—they consist of physical connections that take a very long time, years in some cases, to change substantially. In most cases, the mind learns through trial and error, and sequential reinforcement, there do not appear to be any shortcuts. Over time, this allows us to become extremely adaptable, but in the short/immediate term we are rather inflexible in our thinking and responses, and therefore difficult if not impossible to "hack", at least in the sense of computer reprogramming. OTOH, we also make rather predictable mistakes, we are perceptually and emotionally biased toward certain kinds of decisions over others, often in irrational ways, and we can therefore be manipulated by someone who understands human nature rather well. But the possibility of advances in brain-computer interface technology doesn't affect this either way as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, the brain could be fed false information, or have specific parts stimulated to produce a desired reaction. As a crude example, imagine the pleasure center of your brain being stimulated whenever you see a particular product or politician.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 23rd 2019 at 6:41:08 AM

Yes, although I would point out that happens to our brains already, even without any add-ons.

That's true, I suppose. There are already plenty of ways to hack the brain from outside.

Which leads me to wonder if there is any kind of augmentation that would let us be less vulnerable to cognitive bias, instead of amplifying it, as social media seems to do. Hmm.

Well, if an AI can be trained to recognize deceptive information tactics, it could warn individuals via their neural link if they are detected. It could also provide access to factual information on demand, so lying to people would be a lot harder. For example, if someone tells you, "The Earth is actually cooling," your software buddy could instantly call up the real information about global temperatures.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 23rd 2019 at 9:18:29 AM

So basically an upgrade that automatically links you to Snopes or something every time you hear or read anything.

That could get annoying really fast. Like Clippy, except times a million.

Edited by M84 on Jul 23rd 2019 at 9:21:47 PM

Or Wikipedia. But then the problem becomes making sure that the source of factual information is not itself compromised by people with deceptive intent. Who guards the guardians, as it were?

In response to your edit, it wouldn't necessarily be like a voice in your head (or an Exposition Fairy) reading off information in the back of your mind. It could just be like knowing anything else, except it would be information that isn't directly stored by your brain. You simply have the knowledge as soon as you attempt to recall it. You would also know its source.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 23rd 2019 at 9:23:31 AM

And it would be SO EASY to sneak in "suggestions" to buy certain products or services. If it's not as intrusive as you describe, you would hardly be able to tell your sudden craving for Taco Bell isn't actually your idea.

Edited by M84 on Jul 23rd 2019 at 9:26:27 PM

Ayup. Which is why this is simultaneously awesome and scary.

The "best" part is that it can self-calibrate itself to match your preferences so that you don't even realize something's off. Like, it wouldn't suggest a vegan to go visit a Brazilian steakhouse for dinner.

It'd do stuff like suggest that someone with a history of buying organic foodstuffs go visit Chipotle.

Someone with low income who regularly buys cheap food and doesn't have much time to cook would suddenly think it's a really good time to order pizza instead of cooking.

A rampant homophobe would have their implant suggest lunch at Chik-Fil-A.

And so on.

Edited by M84 on Jul 23rd 2019 at 10:01:28 PM

Transhumanism is always scary because you can't be sure whether your personal beliefs/ideology will be represented in whatever comes next.

And of course you get offered a discount if you purchase the suggestion. And then it stimulates your pleasure center as a reward. Basically voluntary brainwashing. I see no logical limit to this.