This cannot possibly turn to bite us in the ass.
Has Elon mentioned when he's launching Skynet?

kayjay010101This cannot possibly turn to bite us in the ass.
Has Elon mentioned when he's launching Skynet?

Allegedly around 2023, when TSMC has finished launching its latest generation packaging technology. So insiders claim.

Kidding. Actually, Musk tends to side with the singularity-as-an-existential-threat field, so if anything, his intentions would be to impede a Skynet from ever happening. He seems to think that a way to do so is actually to connect humans to the Internet and silicon processing systems, though. Seems slightly counterintuitive, in a way, though it also makes sense, in another.

Musk is so full of shit

RaevenlordAllegedly around 2023, when TSMC has finished launching its latest generation packaging technology. So insiders claim.

Kidding. Actually, Musk tends to side with the singularity-as-an-existential-threat field, so if anything, his intentions would be to impede a Skynet from ever happening. He seems to think that a way to do so is actually to connect humans to the Internet and silicon processing systems, though. Seems slightly counterintuitive, in a way, though it also makes sense, in another.

Hehe, I actually do find myself agreeing with a lot of Musk's viewpoints on technology (though I cannot say I agree with most of his other opinions) and find him a very interesting character in the world of technology. This is really cool tech and could really help a lot in finding cures or ways to suppress mental illnesses and diseases. I was also just joshing around, I've been very interested in this tech for some time and it's clear Musk isn't exactly keen on creating the T1000 or Skynet as it were :D

RaevenlordAllegedly around 2023, when TSMC has finished launching its latest generation packaging technology. So insiders claim.

Kidding. Actually, Musk tends to side with the singularity-as-an-existential-threat field, so if anything, his intentions would be to impede a Skynet from ever happening. He seems to think that a way to do so is actually to connect humans to the Internet and silicon processing systems, though. Seems slightly counterintuitive, in a way, though it also makes sense, in another.

Basically what Musk is selling us, is the Cyborg over the AI. Or, the Matrix Agent over the Zion refugee, the blue or the red pill :). It seems sensible because it would position us favorably against ever more powerful technology, in a way.

Not sure which is worse. Perhaps the more sensible route is 'enough is enough'. Limitations and regulation, like we should when it comes to climate change. The times of exponential and infinite growth are over. We're struggling and redefining to keep up with Moore's Law, things can't get infinitely smaller, etc etc etc.

The only reasonable forecast to start believing in 'net growth' again... is when Musk has actually brought us to Mars.

So, Elon, first things first. You've got lots of companies, but stick to your core business thx.

Scary and inspiring at the same time. As always, technology (or any kind of invention/knowledge) isn't inherently good or bad, it's all about how you use it.

Though I definitely want three things running on this: Anti-malware software, firewall and ad-blockers :laugh:

Vayra86Basically what Musk is selling us, is the Cyborg over the AI.

The problematic here being, a Cyborg has systems that can be directly affected by the AI. "Oh, look at this amazing side-channel vulnerability that I can exploit on models BMI2000..."

windwhirlScary and inspiring at the same time. As always, technology (or any kind of invention/knowledge) isn't inherently good or bad, it's all about how you use it.

Though I definitely want three things running on this: Anti-malware software, firewall and ad-blockers :laugh:

Agreed on all counts.

Don't expect the AdBlockers to do much though. Ads will be organically displayed around you as you move and look at the world.

RaevenlordThe problematic here being, a Cyborg has systems that can be directly affected by the AI. "Oh, look at this amazing side-channel vulnerability that I can exploit on models BMI2000..."

Yup. So far we can't even secure an internet wired door bell, so...

Skynet it is, I'm afraid :D

So is that Neura-link, or Neural-ink?
Musk needs to hire a new guy in charge of spelling.

Caring1So is that Neura-link, or Neural-ink?
Musk needs to hire a new guy in charge of spelling.

I always saw it graphed as Neuralink.

RaevenlordI always saw it graphed as Neuralink.

I meant phonetically, but literally it should have two L's.

This is just the logical outcome of a long process that began when the first seed was sown 10,000 years ago... This (including AI) is the inevitable outcome of that first step and all motivated by the same desire, namely the obsession to dominate nature.

The implications of this are much more profound and deeper than most people understand. For example, this is headed toward nanotechnology in the biomechanical medical field and let's just imagine when it's possible to repair the brain with nanotechnology and actually replace damaged parts of it with that same technology.... Now let's say you are involved in a car accident with severe head trauma and the result is that 51%, or more of your brain is repaired with that nanotechnology... If more than half of your brain is synthetic, are you still thr same person? Can you still even be considered a person? When you dream, would it be you or the nanotechnology powered by general AI dreaming?

This may sound crazy, but I'm 36 and I strongly believe that in my lifetime, we will witness such things as the first Supreme Court case deciding what it actually means to be human and what can still be considered human (predicated upon examples like I offered above). While some enthusiastically welcome the advent of "transhumanism", I prefer to understand it as the death of our humanity... The death of nature, and on levels deeper than physical reality.

Technology isn't "neutral", as some would contend, with the only determining factor being how it is used, rather every piece of technology has an inherent and embedded set of values that fundamentally alter not only the individuals relationship to that technology, but to the greater reality they exist in as well. Our existence is already inundated with vast and very real dependencies on technology which has also sacrificed our own personal autonomy to an almost priestly class of engineers and technicians we now utterly depend on to create and maintain that technology as our daily existence now relies on both. Because the vast majority of individual's skill sets are so specialized to a singular purpose, almost entirely dictated by their line of work or profession, they cannot learn and implement the many differing skills required just to exist in our technological world without needing the additional skills of technicians. Most cannot fix their own cars, so they rely on mechanics, most cannot fix their own computer (maybe not here though) so they rely on a technician... So what happens when your own body becomes one of those technologies and then you depend on a technician for your own direct survival in the most literal sense? What happens when your brain functions are disturbed or attacked and under threat from the inevitable malware that will evolve to attack these nano sized biotechnologies and now your very existence isn't just dependent on Healthcare and doctors, but biotechnologies and technicians as well? What happens when an authoritarian government (and they're seemingly all moving in such a direction) decides to more or less hold people hostage for their "good behavior" under threat of withholding access to those technicians or new firmware for that biotechnology to mitigate the ever increasing threats of malware? What happens when the state or even your employer demands and requires full access to your biotechnologies for "security purposes" and can basically access your thoughts or memories? How would the ability of law enforcement to remotely scan the biotechnology in your brain effect such things as the fourth amendment (search and seizure) and the fifth amendment (right to not self incriminate/remain silent)?

I realize it may seem like I'm getting ahead of myself, but wouldn't it be infinitely wiser to confront these issues now rather than when they're already manifested? The whole concept of AI/Skynet is the largest and most obvious threat from advancing technological progress, but even if we can guarantee that we avert or neutralize such a threat, there still exists an infinite plethora of individual issues created that when taken as a whole, have the same ability to challenge and threaten the very understanding of the foundations of our existence and our relationship to that existence.

"... somehow the project of a humanized technology has proven groundless and result-free; only technified humanity has come to pass. Technology is the embodiment of the social order it accompanies, and in its planetary advance transfers the fundamental ethos and values behind that technology. It never exists in a vacuum and is never value-neutral." - from "Twilight of the Machines" by John Zerzan

What! No references to Johnny Mnemonic? Been dying to see that IRL! :respect:

Ah, I see it now...this is where it all starts...Cyberpunk 2077

hurakuraMusk is so full of shit

Musk is the king of that and way too many people fall for this guy. It's just pathetic.

hurakuraMusk is so full of shit

I mean if I had so much money at my disposal I'd too try some dumb ass ideas.

hurakuraMusk is so full of shit

How so?

Vya DomusI mean if I had so much money at my disposal I'd too try some dumb ass ideas.

"Well guys, today we have a new project in hand. We are gonna build this:"


PS: F*ck WebP.

Whether Musk is full of crap or not. I got give the man props for trying to push the board on topics that were science fiction for the longest time. He can be criticized for being human himself, but how many of us in this forum are trying to get people on mars or potentially cure a fatal brain injury? The answer is none.

I never really got that interested in SpaceX until the first successful launch and landing using only propulsion. That alone was like watching an episode of star trek. A reusable rocket that can land itself in the same spot it took off??? That is awesome.

Caring1I meant phonetically, but literally it should have two L's.

You can't trademark it if it's made up of common words ;)

Also, I don't think it's a matter of wanting one, but, just like a smartphone, if this succeeds you won't be able to function efficiently without one.
If this works, it would make for an incredibly useful tool. Imagine you're a programmer and suffered a hand injury preventing you from typing (true story), but having one of these readily available.

Crying all day about how dangerous are all the AI projects from other companies and then wants to shows us that... hmmm gg Elon.

I don't think very highly about Elon Musk, but this technology is important.

This is far from being the first attempt to establish trans- or extracranial influence from or to the brain, various attempts are made for decades. If Elon Musk is able to provide the usable technology, well - thanks.

Rather than having dystopian views on memory scanning (can't be done, mainly because none knows how it functions in the first place), I would guess that main use would be in medicine (that's where my knowledge on topics mainly come from) - like cure for depression, which ~5% of world population is suffering from, also other neurological states or diseases. Various other medical uses come to mind (pun intended), too.

Other possibility would be direct brain control of, well... processes, something like skipping clumsy brain-hand-HMI connection with direct one. There is also huge research potential.

Surely, it *could* be used for some nefarious purpose - but again, most of the things can. Me, with 20g of kitchen salt can be preparing a nice dinner for a bunch of friends, or... [dramatic chord] killing someone by disbalancing his/her body electrolytes (true - the same thing can be done with ~10l of pot water; I don't even want to talk about various food and its lethal concentrations).

Elon this isn't a Netflix show, so please just concentrate on making your cars safer.

AnarchoPrimitivThis is just the logical outcome of a long process that began when the first seed was sown 10,000 years ago... This (including AI) is the inevitable outcome of that first step and all motivated by the same desire, namely the obsession to dominate nature.

The implications of this are much more profound and deeper than most people understand. For example, this is headed toward nanotechnology in the biomechanical medical field and let's just imagine when it's possible to repair the brain with nanotechnology and actually replace damaged parts of it with that same technology.... Now let's say you are involved in a car accident with severe head trauma and the result is that 51%, or more of your brain is repaired with that nanotechnology... If more than half of your brain is synthetic, are you still thr same person? Can you still even be considered a person? When you dream, would it be you or the nanotechnology powered by general AI dreaming?

This may sound crazy, but I'm 36 and I strongly believe that in my lifetime, we will witness such things as the first Supreme Court case deciding what it actually means to be human and what can still be considered human (predicated upon examples like I offered above). While some enthusiastically welcome the advent of "transhumanism", I prefer to understand it as the death of our humanity... The death of nature, and on levels deeper than physical reality.

Technology isn't "neutral", as some would contend, with the only determining factor being how it is used, rather every piece of technology has an inherent and embedded set of values that fundamentally alter not only the individuals relationship to that technology, but to the greater reality they exist in as well. Our existence is already inundated with vast and very real dependencies on technology which has also sacrificed our own personal autonomy to an almost priestly class of engineers and technicians we now utterly depend on to create and maintain that technology as our daily existence now relies on both. Because the vast majority of individual's skill sets are so specialized to a singular purpose, almost entirely dictated by their line of work or profession, they cannot learn and implement the many differing skills required just to exist in our technological world without needing the additional skills of technicians. Most cannot fix their own cars, so they rely on mechanics, most cannot fix their own computer (maybe not here though) so they rely on a technician... So what happens when your own body becomes one of those technologies and then you depend on a technician for your own direct survival in the most literal sense? What happens when your brain functions are disturbed or attacked and under threat from the inevitable malware that will evolve to attack these nano sized biotechnologies and now your very existence isn't just dependent on Healthcare and doctors, but biotechnologies and technicians as well? What happens when an authoritarian government (and they're seemingly all moving in such a direction) decides to more or less hold people hostage for their "good behavior" under threat of withholding access to those technicians or new firmware for that biotechnology to mitigate the ever increasing threats of malware? What happens when the state or even your employer demands and requires full access to your biotechnologies for "security purposes" and can basically access your thoughts or memories? How would the ability of law enforcement to remotely scan the biotechnology in your brain effect such things as the fourth amendment (search and seizure) and the fifth amendment (right to not self incriminate/remain silent)?

I realize it may seem like I'm getting ahead of myself, but wouldn't it be infinitely wiser to confront these issues now rather than when they're already manifested? The whole concept of AI/Skynet is the largest and most obvious threat from advancing technological progress, but even if we can guarantee that we avert or neutralize such a threat, there still exists an infinite plethora of individual issues created that when taken as a whole, have the same ability to challenge and threaten the very understanding of the foundations of our existence and our relationship to that existence.

"... somehow the project of a humanized technology has proven groundless and result-free; only technified humanity has come to pass. Technology is the embodiment of the social order it accompanies, and in its planetary advance transfers the fundamental ethos and values behind that technology. It never exists in a vacuum and is never value-neutral." - from "Twilight of the Machines" by John Zerzan

That's a really negative view and the first part makes almost no sense.

"Now let's say you are involved in a car accident with severe head trauma and the result is that 51%, or more of your brain is repaired with that nanotechnology... If more than half of your brain is synthetic, are you still thr same person? Can you still even be considered a person? When you dream, would it be you or the nanotechnology powered by general AI dreaming?

This may sound crazy, but I'm 36 and I strongly believe that in my lifetime, we will witness such things as the first Supreme Court case deciding what it actually means to be human and what can still be considered human (predicated upon examples like I offered above). While some enthusiastically welcome the advent of "transhumanism", I prefer to understand it as the death of our humanity... The death of nature, and on levels deeper than physical reality."

Ok, so if you're in a car accident and lose half of your brain, wouldn't you be faced with the decision to either die on the spot or become a cyborg? In that case, your survival instinct wants you to stay alive, even if it means carrying a "prosthetic brain". Isn't much different than what we do today with robotic prosthetic limbs, just a couple of levels more complex.

And the part about not being human, we already know how these things go. Same as with gays and transsexuals, anything "different" will be considered bad at first but then be accepted and humanity will be better for it. The only problem can arise when people with this kind of "prosthesis" start becoming more able than 100% healthy people. It could become a huge advantage to have one of these cyborg brains. I think this is kind of where Neuralink is going. Musk doesn't want to just heal people with brain disabilities and traumas, he wants to give everybody the same advantage who would want it. Either way, it's clear that many people will start wanting one when more and more people start using it because of certain benefits.

Will probably happen similar to when people started switching to smart phones, I remember people (me included) were very skeptical at first and hung on to their old phones way too long but at some point you look around and see everybody is using this new technology and enjoying it, so you go out and buy one for yourself. Now 99,9% of people have smart phone, even the skeptical people from before (again, like myself).

So it's not going to be a sudden thing where everybody suddenly has one. Gradually, people will start evaluating pros and cons and testing it out. I think only if the pros actually overweigh the cons will this be something you are accepted to have. Only if this brings us further in humanity, will society get behind this technology. Because we're still human and we still decide by human standards usually. Maybe we even have to actually become more like machines to be more human, or more like the ideal we hold in our minds of being human. Because let me tell you, right now, it's not really working. Maybe we need to leave the "human condition" behind at some point to be more like what we actually see ourselves as.