5 ms·

I've always thought that it is a bit close-minded to focus on wearable technology when it comes to human augmentation. Vehicles and computers are, in practice,

I've always thought that it is a bit close-minded to focus on wearable technology when it comes to human augmentation. Vehicles and computers are, in practice, much more powerful and feasible augmentations than literal sci-fi robot limbs, brain chips, or digital eyes. The future has been here for a while. Having tech more immediately accessible to our bodies can have a large impact on usability and usage patterns (see mobile), but there's not much of a fundamental qualitative difference in what it enables us to do as humans that we couldn't do before.

espe 3y ago
yes. from the perspective of anthropology, humans using tools are cyborgs. and language and texts are ai. or "alien intelligence" as burroughs (and a few others) would have put it.
kiba 3y ago
I've always thought that it is a bit close-minded to focus on wearable technology when it comes to human augmentation. It's not me that's being enhanced. It's a device external to me. That's why I am not excited by stable diffusion. It doesn't make me better at drawing. Now, you might say that it doesn't matter technologically if your brain is doing it as opposed to a computer doing it. The result would be the same. Sure, I'll concede that, but that would be more about me or you as a person getting better skills, which feels more empowering than a tool that does all the work for me. It's not closed minded, it's a different perspective.
- oersted 3y ago
  You are right if you define “me” as body and brain, what they can do. What I am more focused on is: what impact “me” as an individual person (an independent human agent) can have on my environment. We build technology mostly to optimize for this. My point is that wearable (or implantable) cybernetics lead to an incremental improvement on how easily or frequently we can do what we already do as individuals, but they don’t fundamentally change the things we can do. Sci-fi makes them look amazing but our R&D resources might be better spent elsewhere.
  - kiba 3y ago
    My point is that wearable (or implantable) cybernetics lead to an incremental improvement on how easily or frequently we can do what we already do as individuals, but they but they don’t fundamentally change the things we can do. Sci-fi makes them look amazing but our R&D resources might be better spent elsewhere. We can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. I don't see why we should allocate resources away from cybernetic implants. R&D resources spent on leg and arms prosthesis is incredibly important since movement is very important for a certain portion of our population. Imagine not being able to walk or not being able to grasp. Artificial heart and other cybernetic organs are very useful to have if we can mass production techniques, but it may be easier for us to grow organs that can be implanted. We don't know which will win out, which is why research is needed. Being able to replace part of your body if they're broken is a powerful promise to me. Now...the most underrated tech? Continuous glucose monitoring. It's kinda like a wearable, but it's an implantable device that tell you your blood glucose level almost in real time. It's the most powerful behavioral tool I ever encountered. Now I have 'intentionally' eaten junk food, but the CGM is always there to remind me what a bad job I am doing for my body. Nothing work without the cooperation of the people who uses these devices, of course, but I found a CGM an incredibly powerful lever. I hope that it get cheaper and get more widely used by the population at large rather than being confined to diabetics.
    - oersted 3y ago
      I was thinking in terms of augmenting our capabilities. Absolutely there is a lot of value in this tech for dealing with medical issues and for monitoring.
      - kiba 3y ago
        I was thinking in terms of augmenting our capabilities. Absolutely there is a lot of value in this tech for dealing with medical issues and for monitoring. That's a narrow interpretation of augmentation. Being able to modify one's behavior or live longer lives is arguably adding capabilities. If you can live to 120 years instead of dying at 65, you have a longer period in which you can accumulate new skills and wisdom.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  Learning how to tune models/use their eco-system like that to get good outputs is a skill with about equivalent learning curve to actual art skills. You might not learn to draw, but you learn a skill that's honestly more marketable for tomorrow society. And, like any other instrument or art form, the skills needed to build it are totally different from the skills needed to play it.
  - kiba 3y ago
    You might not learn to draw, but you learn a skill that's honestly more marketable for tomorrow society. I wasn't really going to be impressed with someone doing prompt engineering. It might actually be faster to just manipulate pixels.
User23 3y ago
One can define a dichotomy of those technologies that improve human capability and those that deplete it. For example the fountain pen allows one to be a better calligrapher than a feather quill. On the other hand modern typesetting lets you produce equally beautiful letterforms with no calligraphic skill whatsoever. So much so that in the west calligraphy is virtually extinct. A great deal of external technology, like automobiles, attenuates human natural capability.

espe 3y ago

yes. from the perspective of anthropology, humans using tools are cyborgs. and language and texts are ai. or "alien intelligence" as burroughs (and a few others) would have put it.

kiba 3y ago

I've always thought that it is a bit close-minded to focus on wearable technology when it comes to human augmentation. It's not me that's being enhanced. It's a device external to me. That's why I am not excited by stable diffusion. It doesn't make me better at drawing. Now, you might say that it doesn't matter technologically if your brain is doing it as opposed to a computer doing it. The result would be the same. Sure, I'll concede that, but that would be more about me or you as a person getting better skills, which feels more empowering than a tool that does all the work for me. It's not closed minded, it's a different perspective.

oersted 3y ago
You are right if you define “me” as body and brain, what they can do. What I am more focused on is: what impact “me” as an individual person (an independent human agent) can have on my environment. We build technology mostly to optimize for this. My point is that wearable (or implantable) cybernetics lead to an incremental improvement on how easily or frequently we can do what we already do as individuals, but they don’t fundamentally change the things we can do. Sci-fi makes them look amazing but our R&D resources might be better spent elsewhere.
- kiba 3y ago
  My point is that wearable (or implantable) cybernetics lead to an incremental improvement on how easily or frequently we can do what we already do as individuals, but they but they don’t fundamentally change the things we can do. Sci-fi makes them look amazing but our R&D resources might be better spent elsewhere. We can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. I don't see why we should allocate resources away from cybernetic implants. R&D resources spent on leg and arms prosthesis is incredibly important since movement is very important for a certain portion of our population. Imagine not being able to walk or not being able to grasp. Artificial heart and other cybernetic organs are very useful to have if we can mass production techniques, but it may be easier for us to grow organs that can be implanted. We don't know which will win out, which is why research is needed. Being able to replace part of your body if they're broken is a powerful promise to me. Now...the most underrated tech? Continuous glucose monitoring. It's kinda like a wearable, but it's an implantable device that tell you your blood glucose level almost in real time. It's the most powerful behavioral tool I ever encountered. Now I have 'intentionally' eaten junk food, but the CGM is always there to remind me what a bad job I am doing for my body. Nothing work without the cooperation of the people who uses these devices, of course, but I found a CGM an incredibly powerful lever. I hope that it get cheaper and get more widely used by the population at large rather than being confined to diabetics.
  - oersted 3y ago
    I was thinking in terms of augmenting our capabilities. Absolutely there is a lot of value in this tech for dealing with medical issues and for monitoring.
    - kiba 3y ago
      I was thinking in terms of augmenting our capabilities. Absolutely there is a lot of value in this tech for dealing with medical issues and for monitoring. That's a narrow interpretation of augmentation. Being able to modify one's behavior or live longer lives is arguably adding capabilities. If you can live to 120 years instead of dying at 65, you have a longer period in which you can accumulate new skills and wisdom.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
Learning how to tune models/use their eco-system like that to get good outputs is a skill with about equivalent learning curve to actual art skills. You might not learn to draw, but you learn a skill that's honestly more marketable for tomorrow society. And, like any other instrument or art form, the skills needed to build it are totally different from the skills needed to play it.
- kiba 3y ago
  You might not learn to draw, but you learn a skill that's honestly more marketable for tomorrow society. I wasn't really going to be impressed with someone doing prompt engineering. It might actually be faster to just manipulate pixels.

User23 3y ago

One can define a dichotomy of those technologies that improve human capability and those that deplete it. For example the fountain pen allows one to be a better calligrapher than a feather quill. On the other hand modern typesetting lets you produce equally beautiful letterforms with no calligraphic skill whatsoever. So much so that in the west calligraphy is virtually extinct. A great deal of external technology, like automobiles, attenuates human natural capability.