I’m not sure why the tone is so negative in this article given that the plan being discussed is to make the technology so useful that most people want it despite the disadvantages. That’s not coercion.
Very occasionally I run into something that used to be doable without a smartphone but requires a smartphone now, but that’s quite rare. Not having a smartphone now would be very inconvenient, but generally not more inconvenient than living without a smartphone was before they existed. I expect the same with this technology, if it ever arrives.
About the time that the techbro overlords figure out the command to the chip that makes it so you can’t get an erection, is about the time you’re suddenly going to be on the hook for 80 hour workweeks.
Don’t think for a millisecond that can’t be a possibility.
Because if the last twenty years have taught us anything, it’s that “tech leaders” are not looking out for the public’s best interest and are more than willing to lie about the potential benefits and harm of their products.
They all got ultra wealthy on a very narrow field of expertise, and now that makes them think they are geniuses. These people barely understand their own fields anymore, and everything they say about cognitive science is extremely worrying.
The most advanced brain chips they’ve made are nothing but a more invasive version of computer brain interfaces that have been around for over 30 years. Them talking about “having an answer pop in your brain” is just science fiction.
Sure. Because we haven’t learned a thing in the last two decades regarding enshittification, rent-seeking and anti-costumer behavior of Tech Corpos, we will all line up to combine those traits with something that sits in our brains.
Should we get to the point where severe brain injuries can be healed without any remaining neurological deficits in a few days, we can revisit this discussion. Before that, everyone lining up for that is already braindead and has no risk of losing mental capacity.
I’m not sure why the tone is so negative in this article given that the plan being discussed is to make the technology so useful that most people want it despite the disadvantages. That’s not coercion.
They’ll make life so inconvenient without it that you’ll be forced to get it.
Very occasionally I run into something that used to be doable without a smartphone but requires a smartphone now, but that’s quite rare. Not having a smartphone now would be very inconvenient, but generally not more inconvenient than living without a smartphone was before they existed. I expect the same with this technology, if it ever arrives.
3 mundane and common things that are locked behind a smartphone interface, that I have run into recently, and I don’t even live in a city.
Not at first: At that point, it’s marketing.
About the time that the techbro overlords figure out the command to the chip that makes it so you can’t get an erection, is about the time you’re suddenly going to be on the hook for 80 hour workweeks.
Don’t think for a millisecond that can’t be a possibility.
I have this user tagged as “fascist enabler” so that checks
Well at least the username checks out.
To the highest bidder goes the shill I suppose.
Because if the last twenty years have taught us anything, it’s that “tech leaders” are not looking out for the public’s best interest and are more than willing to lie about the potential benefits and harm of their products.
They all got ultra wealthy on a very narrow field of expertise, and now that makes them think they are geniuses. These people barely understand their own fields anymore, and everything they say about cognitive science is extremely worrying.
The most advanced brain chips they’ve made are nothing but a more invasive version of computer brain interfaces that have been around for over 30 years. Them talking about “having an answer pop in your brain” is just science fiction.
Sure. Because we haven’t learned a thing in the last two decades regarding enshittification, rent-seeking and anti-costumer behavior of Tech Corpos, we will all line up to combine those traits with something that sits in our brains.
Should we get to the point where severe brain injuries can be healed without any remaining neurological deficits in a few days, we can revisit this discussion. Before that, everyone lining up for that is already braindead and has no risk of losing mental capacity.
Well why don’t they make the technology and then talk about it rather than the other way around.
You know what the difference between a snakes oil salesman and a doctor with medication? Evidence.