4 ms·

That's an interesting narrative to be pushing. Care to back up your claims that this is for mass mind control with evidence/logic/reason/concrete thought, or is

That's an interesting narrative to be pushing. Care to back up your claims that this is for mass mind control with evidence/logic/reason/concrete thought, or is the demagoguery the core of your position?

Zambyte 3y ago
> Care to back up your claims that this is for mass mind control with evidence/logic/reason/concrete thought Sure. Elon himself says that the goal of Neuralink is "bidirectional communication" very often. That means reading from and writing to the mind. Obviously he doesn't want to say "mind control" because of the negative connotation, so instead he just describes it. As for the "mass" part, Elon has also claimed many times that the goal of Neuralink is general use, and that medical applications are a stepping stone to that.
- nynx 3y ago
  Mind control is the last thing elon would want brought into the world. You are purposely misinterpreting his statements.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Not saying Musk is aiming at mind control here at all -- I don't know what his motivations or goals are -- but why do you think it would be the last thing he would want brought into the world? It doesn't sound like a thing he'd philosophically object to.
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    > You are purposely misinterpreting his statements. What does "bidirectional communication" mean if not read and write? What other directions are there?
    - mikecoles 3y ago
      Sight, taste, touch are all inputs. An input doesn't mean it takes control.
      - Zambyte 3y ago
        It means it has a non zero amount of control. Consider the following: Google has a collection of computers with inputs. One of those inputs can be accessed via the Google web search interface. When you search a term using the Google web interface, you are requesting control over a very small part of the collection of computers at Google in order to complete your request. When you do this, you do not control all of Google, but you are exercising C2 over a tiny portion of it. Now consider that Google was built on technologies that can precisely reject requests for control per request based on certain conditions. Google can reject requests based on your IP, your personal identity, the contents of the request, etc. The human brain does not have facilities for doing that. It did not evolve with the expectation that it would be valuable to reject neurological patterns that behave like sensory inputs. An example of this would be like taking a psychoactive drug, and then trying to think it's effects away. You can't do it. The difference between a psychoactive drug and a brain to computer interface is that one of them can dynamically impose specific neurological phenomena (what you call inputs) based on the intent of someone else, and the other one will land you in jail for possession.
  - hmcq6 3y ago
    Parasocial delusion. You don't know Elon Musk personally, you can't speak to his character like this. The facts are that if he was so benevolent he wouldn't be a billionaire. End of story.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > The facts are that if he was so benevolent he wouldn't be a billionaire. End of story. I don't trust his benevolence, but that doesn't follow. Money at that level exists as an indicator of the marginal amount someone else will pay to own a right to the expected future 20-ish years of the profits of the companies he owns, multiplied up as if there were enough people to buy all of it. This kind of accounting can easily value the average final year university student in the UK at around a million pounds even if they've never had so much as a summer holiday job. Sometimes this is enough to buy out the business, other times the attempt runs out of buyers and the price crashes part way through. If Alice has a plan to save the world and doing so involves creating a company that someone else thinks can be asset-stripped for a trillion dollars, then Alice will be "worth" a trillion dollars. Of course, I just wrote "Alice" rather than "Musk" because I want to make it clear I don't think Musk is anywhere near this angelic; it's just an illustration.
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  So, to be clear here: You think that providing input to neurons through an electronic interface is mind control? As in, we're not talking about people doing research on how to leverage the input/output interaction between the brain and these devices to perform manipulation of conscious/subconscious thought? We're literally just talking about being able to talk to neurons at all being mind control? Just so long as I understand where the goalposts are being moved to and we can keep them there. I imagine next we'll hear a slippery slope argument next about how even allowing such communication means it'll be used for mind control?
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    > You think that providing input to neurons through an electronic interface is mind control? Um... yes...? I am really confused why people keep describing mind control as a defense of mind control. > As in, we're not talking about people doing research on how to leverage the input/output interaction between the brain and these devices to perform manipulation of conscious/subconscious thought? Yes, even if we ignore the part of Neuralink where they are working to understand and deploy complex interactions over human brain to computer interfaces, a little bit of mind control is in fact, still mind control. I'm not sure who you think is moving goal posts. Controlling the mind with a direct interface to the mind is mind control. That much is obvious. I also think it's interesting that you dropped the "mind reading" portion of my previous comment. Do you find that harder to refute, or do you think that Elon Musk should be allowed to read peoples thoughts?
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Um... yes...? I am really confused why people keep describing mind control as a defense of mind control. Because at the current state of the art, it's no more "control" than from stimulating cochlear with a cochlear implant. Musk does talk about a Culture-esq Neural Lace (which also covers "mind reading" to the level of being an offsite backup) but the neuroscientists I hear discussing the tech that really exists and that they think is likely to come any time soon regard this as bombastic nonsense. The research into mind reading from (unrelated, human-rated and already placed) implants is interesting, and I think worth caring about with regards to privacy and security: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcfC53c3tSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcfC53c3tSc
3seashells 3y ago
And there talks the evidence..

Zambyte 3y ago

> Care to back up your claims that this is for mass mind control with evidence/logic/reason/concrete thought Sure. Elon himself says that the goal of Neuralink is "bidirectional communication" very often. That means reading from and writing to the mind. Obviously he doesn't want to say "mind control" because of the negative connotation, so instead he just describes it. As for the "mass" part, Elon has also claimed many times that the goal of Neuralink is general use, and that medical applications are a stepping stone to that.

nynx 3y ago
Mind control is the last thing elon would want brought into the world. You are purposely misinterpreting his statements.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Not saying Musk is aiming at mind control here at all -- I don't know what his motivations or goals are -- but why do you think it would be the last thing he would want brought into the world? It doesn't sound like a thing he'd philosophically object to.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > You are purposely misinterpreting his statements. What does "bidirectional communication" mean if not read and write? What other directions are there?
  - mikecoles 3y ago
    Sight, taste, touch are all inputs. An input doesn't mean it takes control.
    - Zambyte 3y ago
      It means it has a non zero amount of control. Consider the following: Google has a collection of computers with inputs. One of those inputs can be accessed via the Google web search interface. When you search a term using the Google web interface, you are requesting control over a very small part of the collection of computers at Google in order to complete your request. When you do this, you do not control all of Google, but you are exercising C2 over a tiny portion of it. Now consider that Google was built on technologies that can precisely reject requests for control per request based on certain conditions. Google can reject requests based on your IP, your personal identity, the contents of the request, etc. The human brain does not have facilities for doing that. It did not evolve with the expectation that it would be valuable to reject neurological patterns that behave like sensory inputs. An example of this would be like taking a psychoactive drug, and then trying to think it's effects away. You can't do it. The difference between a psychoactive drug and a brain to computer interface is that one of them can dynamically impose specific neurological phenomena (what you call inputs) based on the intent of someone else, and the other one will land you in jail for possession.
- hmcq6 3y ago
  Parasocial delusion. You don't know Elon Musk personally, you can't speak to his character like this. The facts are that if he was so benevolent he wouldn't be a billionaire. End of story.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > The facts are that if he was so benevolent he wouldn't be a billionaire. End of story. I don't trust his benevolence, but that doesn't follow. Money at that level exists as an indicator of the marginal amount someone else will pay to own a right to the expected future 20-ish years of the profits of the companies he owns, multiplied up as if there were enough people to buy all of it. This kind of accounting can easily value the average final year university student in the UK at around a million pounds even if they've never had so much as a summer holiday job. Sometimes this is enough to buy out the business, other times the attempt runs out of buyers and the price crashes part way through. If Alice has a plan to save the world and doing so involves creating a company that someone else thinks can be asset-stripped for a trillion dollars, then Alice will be "worth" a trillion dollars. Of course, I just wrote "Alice" rather than "Musk" because I want to make it clear I don't think Musk is anywhere near this angelic; it's just an illustration.
thefurdrake 3y ago
So, to be clear here: You think that providing input to neurons through an electronic interface is mind control? As in, we're not talking about people doing research on how to leverage the input/output interaction between the brain and these devices to perform manipulation of conscious/subconscious thought? We're literally just talking about being able to talk to neurons at all being mind control? Just so long as I understand where the goalposts are being moved to and we can keep them there. I imagine next we'll hear a slippery slope argument next about how even allowing such communication means it'll be used for mind control?
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > You think that providing input to neurons through an electronic interface is mind control? Um... yes...? I am really confused why people keep describing mind control as a defense of mind control. > As in, we're not talking about people doing research on how to leverage the input/output interaction between the brain and these devices to perform manipulation of conscious/subconscious thought? Yes, even if we ignore the part of Neuralink where they are working to understand and deploy complex interactions over human brain to computer interfaces, a little bit of mind control is in fact, still mind control. I'm not sure who you think is moving goal posts. Controlling the mind with a direct interface to the mind is mind control. That much is obvious. I also think it's interesting that you dropped the "mind reading" portion of my previous comment. Do you find that harder to refute, or do you think that Elon Musk should be allowed to read peoples thoughts?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Um... yes...? I am really confused why people keep describing mind control as a defense of mind control. Because at the current state of the art, it's no more "control" than from stimulating cochlear with a cochlear implant. Musk does talk about a Culture-esq Neural Lace (which also covers "mind reading" to the level of being an offsite backup) but the neuroscientists I hear discussing the tech that really exists and that they think is likely to come any time soon regard this as bombastic nonsense. The research into mind reading from (unrelated, human-rated and already placed) implants is interesting, and I think worth caring about with regards to privacy and security: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcfC53c3tSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcfC53c3tSc

3seashells 3y ago

And there talks the evidence..