4 ms·

That's a weak analogy because the voice input sounds like the voice output in speech recognition. When I see "horse poop" the thing I'm imagining and hearing i

That's a weak analogy because the voice input sounds like the voice output in speech recognition. When I see "horse poop" the thing I'm imagining and hearing in my head is not the individual letters as they appear on the screen at all. I'm hearing it in an internal monologue and I'm imagining and image and a smell. In other words, the output generates wildly different input so 'subtracting it out' won't really work.

ThomPete 9y ago
but it might have patterns which can be recognized. Dont really see the problem.
- eximius 9y ago
  You just stated the problem. It 'might', it 'might' not be recognizable..
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    That's not a problem that's a potential opportunity which isn't as absolute as the claim I was responding to.
52-6F-62 9y ago
So maybe your natural thought process wouldn't work for said use case, but like keyboards and other user interfaces, you could surely learn to control it fairly simply. Maybe it's as simple as training yourself to imagine the words spelled out (if that was all it took). We've all seen people who are new to keyboards, mice and even GUI's attempt to navigate a computer. It's clunky, slow, there's a lot of noise in the movements and erred clicks made. I think it was here on HN I saw a great write-up once about leaving the gap in UX—that there is a threshold where the use just simply has to learn something in order to effectively use the device. I don't know how the control interface for thought could look in the end in so few words, but I'm reasonably confident it could be brought down to a certain level that is more than attainable for the average user to meet.