Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Robotics AI

Elon Musk: Humans Need To Merge With Machines Else They Will Become Irrelevant in AI Age (cnbc.com) 251

Billionaire Elon Musk is known for his futuristic ideas. So it didn't come as a surprise when on Monday at the World Government Summit in Dubai, he predicted that over time we will see a "closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence." He added, via a CNBC report: "It's mostly about the bandwidth, the speed of the connection between your brain and the digital version of yourself, particularly output." Musk explained what he meant by saying that computers can communicate at "a trillion bits per second", while humans, whose main communication method is typing with their fingers via a mobile device, can do about 10 bits per second. In an age when AI threatens to become widespread, humans would be useless, so there's a need to merge with machines, according to Musk. "Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem," Musk explained.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elon Musk: Humans Need To Merge With Machines Else They Will Become Irrelevant in AI Age

Comments Filter:
  • by speedplane ( 552872 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:03AM (#53856647) Homepage
    The code I write at a solid 10 bits per second sure beats anything I've seen a computer do.
    • Musk explained what he meant by saying that computers can communicate at "a trillion bits per second", while humans, whose main communication method is typing with their fingers via a mobile device, can do about 10 bits per second.

      Why do you insist on utilizing this primitive linguistic communication? Your android brain is capable of so much more. --Borg Queen

      I just had to :)

    • by Delwin ( 599872 )
      OK, now try doing it without a compiler or assembler.

      Machines have been writing most of our code for decades now.
  • This guy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geek ( 5680 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:03AM (#53856649)

    Elon needs to go away. One minute we're all in the fucking Matrix and the next we need to "merge with machines". Pick one you fucking douche bag

    • Re:This guy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:13AM (#53856753)
      He needs to go away from topics like this because he's an engineer trying to talk about AI as if he has some clue. People seem to forget that Elon's success is largely due to the people who he surrounds himself with and not him specifically. The man is not an expert in all things.
      • You're right. Instead of putting his name in the press release, Elon should reference the idea as having come from Pakit Cherniabiyia, the lead developer at the third-party firm overseas who is handling Tesla's AI research. That's sure to result in lots more press interviews and investments. Good thinking...!
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Except the idea didn't come from him. It came directly from Elon who's ego has inflated to such a degree that he's starting to believe his own bullshit.
      • by Nyder ( 754090 )

        He needs to go away from topics like this because he's an engineer trying to talk about AI as if he has some clue. People seem to forget that Elon's success is largely due to the people who he surrounds himself with and not him specifically. The man is not an expert in all things.

        Pretty sure I heard Trump explain that about himself. "I surround myself with the smartest people"

      • Somewhat ironic that the person who owns Tesla would be more of an Edison...
    • Yellow Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:19AM (#53856815) Homepage

      "Humans Need To Merge With Machines?" Reading the article it turns out Musk said nothing of the sort. He actually said, "we will probably see a closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence."

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <.mojo. .at. .world3.net.> on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:37AM (#53857011) Homepage Journal

        He's probably right, eventually taking your glasses off will be like suffering from some kind of learning disability. All text you see automatically scanned and available for perfect recall, the name of ever person you meet whispered in your ear in case you forgot, any equation instantly solved... And an unquenchable thirst for Pepsi, an uncontrollable urge to buy a Tesla.

        • by lorinc ( 2470890 )

          He's probably right, eventually taking your glasses off will be like suffering from some kind of learning disability. All text you see automatically scanned and available for perfect recall, the name of ever person you meet whispered in your ear in case you forgot, any equation instantly solved... And an unquenchable thirst for Pepsi, an uncontrollable urge to buy a Tesla.

          It's already sort of the case. Most of modern students are incapable of doing anything if they don't have facebook to ask elder friends for what to search on google. And then they have an unquenchable thirst for Pepsi. Conclusion, you don't need a brain interface to sell crap and render people useless.

          • by luis_a_espinal ( 1810296 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @03:24PM (#53859403) Homepage

            He's probably right, eventually taking your glasses off will be like suffering from some kind of learning disability. All text you see automatically scanned and available for perfect recall, the name of ever person you meet whispered in your ear in case you forgot, any equation instantly solved... And an unquenchable thirst for Pepsi, an uncontrollable urge to buy a Tesla.

            It's already sort of the case. Most of modern students are incapable of doing anything if they don't have facebook to ask elder friends for what to search on google. And then they have an unquenchable thirst for Pepsi. Conclusion, you don't need a brain interface to sell crap and render people useless.

            There is so much bullshit with this. Modern students still learn how to use a library. I know, I see batches of students coming with their teachers all the time to learn how (just like old times.) All colleges make students learn how to use them (just like in old times), etc, etc.

            In reality, the ability to search online has made students (and people in general) far more efficient at retrieving information. Obviously, this also has the downside that it makes it easy to plagiarize. But that comes with every technology. You get what you put in, and you put in according to what kind of person you are.

            Case in point: my daughter who is in second grade now knows how to use google voice search to check for spelling of words she doesn't know. Then she cross-checks it with her dictionary in English and Japanese (since she is bilingual, and soon to be trilingual if everything goes according plan.)

            She has become more efficient at writing her homework reports (while learning how to spell faster) without inducing cheating or sloppy work. It has reduced her frustration while helping her focus on the topics she needs to write. This, at 2nd grade.

            This type of efficiency increases a lot more for older students and adults.

            Pretending that people now are useless because they leverage electronic searches and social media is like pretending farmers today are useless for using tractors instead of hand-held plows.

            In other words, this line of reasoning is both simplistic and stupid.

      • It doesn't matter anyway-- the statement is absurd. Humans will never be able to match a machine's pace, even with wires going into their heads. Organic neurons are PAINFULLY slow, with cycle times measured in milliseconds. By comparison, computers are measured in multiples of giga-ops per second.

        A human will never be able to adapt to the real output pace of a well written program. Even WITH borg implants.

        • by johanw ( 1001493 )

          We don't need to - we'll let the machines do the data processing and present us the end result, which requires much less data to present.

      • by DogDude ( 805747 )
        A couple of paragraphs down:

        In an age when AI threatens to become widespread, humans would be useless, so there's a need to merge with machines, according to Musk.
        • The actual quote is

          "Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem," Musk explained.

          Beware of anything in a news article without quotation marks, or is attributed with "according to..." as paraphrasing, which is fair-warning, for good or ill, that the writer is putting his own spin on things.

          and "high bandwidth interface to the brain"? Many [slashdot.org] examples [slashdot.org] already [slashdot.org] happening [slashdot.org] in the [slashdot.org] field of [slashdot.org] medicine [scientificamerican.com].

    • They're the same thing though just used for different purposes.

    • Elon Musk should merge with this machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) [wikipedia.org]
  • by ruir ( 2709173 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:06AM (#53856675)
    Irrelevant as corporate slaves?
  • "We are the Musks, resistance is futile."

  • I think most people accept that eventually we will have implants that both do their own AI processing as well as interface with other technology. The cell phone will be the first to be integrated.

    This will be a huge problem at work as IT will no longer be able to ban games and people will sit at their desks playing games in their heads, prattling of Slashdot and Facebook, and generally screwing off, invisible to the boss.

    • by UncleRage ( 515550 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:18AM (#53856805)

      Even better when you consider that an improper filter set to prevent this winds up causing seizures for everyone up in HR.

      "Be back, in a bit. I have to go reboot Bob again."

      • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

        Even better when you consider that an improper filter set to prevent this winds up causing seizures for everyone up in HR.

        "Be back, in a bit. I have to go reboot Bob again."

        Before we let him make any more decisions, must upgrade him to the Pointy Haired Boss 3.1 firmware.

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:15AM (#53856785)

    AI can and probably will ultimately make the concept of human employment extinct. And we probably need to accept that fact faster than any prediction, given the speed at which technology has accelerated just in the last couple of decades.

    Humans need to first solve the problem of Greed. Otherwise, the chasm that separates the AI owners and wealthy overlords from the rest of the human race will continue to grow, and they won't give a shit about the demise of the irrelevant meatsack masses.

    • Sure they will. We'll be their primary source of protein.
    • Yeah, its a gigantic social problem coming ahead. Capitalism has let the human greed work for it, but if humans don't have to work, only the dividing parts of greed will remain.

      Even further, it will be interesting whether and how the new capabilities given by AI will help the enemies of free democratic systems.

      I don't think humans as such will become irrelevant. Unless some human programs an AI to defy the orders of humans there won't be any "takeover by AI" I think, so there will be always humans at the to

      • ...The question is about the remaining 99.99% of humanity.

        We really need to figure out how such a society could look like and we need to figure it out fast, because technology doesn't wait.

        The answer already exists. We call it "Welfare" today. We'll give it a fancy name like "UBI" tomorrow, but make no mistake, it's the same exact shit, funded in the same shit way.

        And when I say shit, I mean the fact that Greed N. Corruption will lobby to ensure fiscal responsibility will start and end at sustaining life, and not a penny more.

        Forget the American dream. The Human plan will become nothing more than survival unless we Solve for Greed.

    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      AI can and probably will ultimately make the concept of human employment extinct. And we probably need to accept that fact faster than any prediction, given the speed at which technology has accelerated just in the last couple of decades.

      Humans need to first solve the problem of Greed. Otherwise, the chasm that separates the AI owners and wealthy overlords from the rest of the human race will continue to grow, and they won't give a shit about the demise of the irrelevant meatsack masses.

      That's exactly what I said up above...

    • by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @12:36PM (#53857605)
      Oh, just stop it. Your desire to neither work nor think does not mean that people will stop working and thinking.
      • Oh, just stop it. Your desire to neither work nor think does not mean that people will stop working and thinking.

        People won't stop thinking. At least I sure as hell hope not.

        That said, the issue will become one of survival with a society that thrives on the concepts of education and employment as the recognized mechanisms to sustain life.

        When there are no human jobs left, the reasons to educate a human start to dwindle, as does motivation.

    • Not going to happen. One man's greed is another man's necessity. Some people consider air conditioning and TV to be necessities.
      • Not going to happen. One man's greed is another man's necessity. Some people consider air conditioning and TV to be necessities.

        Are you saying they aren't?

  • by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:18AM (#53856811)

    Most of the comments so far have been personal attacks on Musk. I guess this is par for the low level of discourse here.
    However, I'd like to see some discussion of his statement.
    Would a better connection between humans and machines be beneficial?
    What would be the benefits/ problems?
    How could this be achieved?
    Come on, folks, I have seen much better from you in the past.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Fine, I'll bite.

      We dont have Strong AI. We're not even close. We have programs that are written to do certain tasks really well, and learn how to do tasks when we define the rules for them. We are not close to an AI that can learn things without our assistance.

      We do not know how the human brain works, much less be able to merge it with anything. We are not even close.

      This is a fantasy pipe dream. Elon could say we need to build lightsabers and blockade runners to fight the Empire when they get here, an

      • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:57AM (#53857211) Homepage

        We dont have Strong AI.

        I missed the part when Musk said "we need to do X by next Tuesday".

        We do not know how the human brain works

        Again, I missed the part when Musk said "we need to do X by next Tuesday".

        This is a fantasy pipe dream.

        I missed the part where time ceased progressing and technology ceased advancing.

        Elon could say we need to build 1) lightsabers and 2) blockade runners to fight 3) the Empire when they get here

        1) Not in line with physics, and impractical
        2) Does not describe a concrete thing with traits arguably superior to alternatives
        3) Does not exist, with no prospect of it existing... (...depending on how strictly you want to define it, either A) "... any time soon", or B) "... ever."

    • Having a direct link seems problematic. At what point does the technology control you? Isn't it bad enough already with people dependent on their phones to do anything? It seems at that point we would be giving up a major component of that which makes us human.
      • I think, and my thoughts cross the barrier into the synapses of the machine, just as the good doctor intended. But what I cannot shake, and what hints at things to come, is that thoughts cross back. In my dreams, the sensibility of the machine invades the periphery of my consciousness: dark, rigid, cold, alien. Evolution is at work here, but just what is evolving remains to be seen.

        —Commissioner Pravin Lal,
        “Man and Machine”
    • by thinkwaitfast ( 4150389 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:45AM (#53857087)
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
    • Here is the honest truth: there is not currently a realistic mechanism to allow a brain to bilaterally interface with a computer in any meaningful way. So without even a blueprint for how it might work, it is impossible to have a useful discussion about the concept.
      • So would it be beneficial to figure out a way? Regardless of predicting the future of whether that results in finding no feasible solution, that question can be asked prior to or without ever having a clue about how. What would the benefits be? What would the potential problems be? These are reasonable questions to posit when discussing such topics.
    • Eventually, yes, human/machine merging will be beneficial. We're just not there yet. Maybe it will be fitting us with "memory" to help us store and remember our experiences better. I think we can all see how it might help to be able to "rewind in our mind to last Tuesday night".

      As we live longer lives, if we have technology to increase our lifespan dramatically before we wipe ourselves out, there is a real benefit to a longer-lasting brain with more storage and longevity of usefulness.

      More powerful limbs

    • I'll be cynical:

      Most of the comments so far have been personal attacks on Musk. I guess this is par for the low level of discourse here. However, I'd like to see some discussion of his statement. Would a better connection between humans and machines be beneficial?

      I'd lean toward "no", with the thinking that a majority of what people end up using technology for today is posting pictures of themselves or their cats on Facebook.

      It's true our brains are able to process an incredible amount of information very quickly to make sense of things. Best I can tell that's limited to sensory input, not direction.

      What would be the benefits/ problems?

      Benefits? We *may* get some robotics technicians able to quickly tell that arm on the assembly line to stop before it hits Dave again. Then again, tha

    • by AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:44PM (#53858985)

      However, I'd like to see some discussion of his statement.
      Would a better connection between humans and machines be beneficial?
      What would be the benefits/ problems?
      How could this be achieved?

      To discuss something meaningfully, you need to have a freakin' clue how it might work. At this point in time, we don't. We don't know how the brain works. We don't have anything close to strong AI. The best interfaces we're looking at now are stuff like moving artificial limbs or whatever. To speculate on what might happen IF we could all of this would be sort of like walking up to Isaac Newton in the 18th century and saying, "Sir Isaac, what problems do you think will occur with the internet next year? What will the major benefits/problems be of new advances?" Even if you explained the basic idea of the internet to Newton, I doubt he'd have enough perspective to meaningfully debate what might happen.

      But, having put forth that disclaimer, I'll just note a few complete speculations in response to Musk. First is that his argument seems premised on the idea that a faster interface from brain to world would be beneficial to humans. Maybe it would. OR maybe our brains are somewhat limited in maximum input/output in ways that we can't really understand yet because we've never tried what he's proposing. Typing is about the right "speed of thought" for me to create coherent text. I've tried dictating, and I need to pause, correct, and reword too much for it to be useful to me. That seems to be how my brain works... although if I really needed to, I probably could retrain myself to dictate better.

      But what if you increased my potential output by 10-fold, 100-fold, a million-fold. Would that actually be useful for me to interact with the world better or faster? Or would it just result in gibberish because my brain literally can't adapt to working much faster than it already does in USEFUL output? Or maybe the plasticity of the adult brain isn't enough to adapt -- so we try hooking up infants from birth with these things. Maybe it works... or maybe it just drives them to be insane or to have other brain development that effectively renders them LESS functional than "normal" humans. Not saying this WILL happen, but it's a possibility when you're talking about an interface with absolutely NO IDEA on what specs might work. Human brains have spent millions of years evolving into what they are to work efficiently at the speeds they do. Just because you could theoretically hook up a device to increase input/output doesn't mean the brain can actually change and adapt enough to make use of the throughput meaningfully.

      Also, I think it's important to note in a discussion like this that one of the PRIMARY hallmarks of human intelligence is FORGETTING. One of the things that makes humans so much better than machines is our ability for abstraction -- finding larger patterns so we don't have to parse the "stream of consciousness" directly all the time. And then we sleep, and our brains revisit the memories of things that we've evolved to assimilate as "important" data, while we forget millions of random little details of our day at the same time.

      Effectively, we take a very TINY percentage of the "noise" that is input into our brains and actually remember it in any detail, mostly through complex pattern-matching that we're only even beginning to emulate in specific cases with computer algorithms. But the point is that there's only so much that we CAN assimilate into our brains -- and that goes not just for memories, but for new skills or whatever. (Think about when you've tried to learn a skill by "cramming" for a full day or two vs. when you've done practice for a few minutes/day over weeks or months. Your brain needs the "downtime" to assimilate new skills... increasing input or output seems unlikely to make that process faster.)

      My speculation is that Musk's idea is rather pointless for somehow keeping humans "relevant" or whatever. IF w

  • Firewall? (Score:5, Informative)

    by zamboni1138 ( 308944 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:21AM (#53856837)

    Some high bandwidth interface to the brain...

    Without a 100% perfection inbound firewall you're not coming anywhere near my brain interface.

    • Some high bandwidth interface to the brain...

      Without a 100% perfection inbound firewall you're not coming anywhere near my brain interface.

      Given the fact that your brain "interface" consists of recognized senses (sight, sound, touch, etc.), am I to assume you are devoid of all of these, or maintain some super-human ability to "firewall" off all input?

      Experience and wisdom helps build those firewall rules, but we humans are far from perfect.

  • Elon Musk is working on building a JC Denton.

  • by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:28AM (#53856925)

    alternatively: humans only need to communicate at 10 bits, we don't need a trillion bits per second to enjoy life.

    But really, isn't the trick to do less, not more? I ain't no worker-bee. I'm jealous of my pet dog sitting on the couch all day while I work at a desk. I want his life -- it's called retirement.

    Productivity is the goal of business. Laziness is the goal of life. I've worked hard to be this lazy.

    • "computers can communicate at "a trillion bits per second", while humans, whose main communication method is typing with their fingers via a mobile device, can do about 10 bits per second"

      Maybe he was mistaking interprocess or CPU interconnect speed with interface speed? Even then, while my output might reach 100WPM (8-9CPS) or by speech maybe 120WPM (there's that 10CPS, or 80BPS), what is the interprocess bandwidth of the typical human brain?

      And what does any of this have to do with reality? The tech world

    • alternatively: humans only need to communicate at 10 bits, we don't need a trillion bits per second to enjoy life.

      Accelerated learning, specially for adults. I could see a whole class of problems being solved with that. I'm not saying that it is practical with today's technology (or that it is completely desirable.) But there is nothing that prevents this from happening within the next 50-100 years (which in the context of human society, that's a blink of an eye.)

      But really, isn't the trick to do less, not more? I ain't no worker-bee. I'm jealous of my pet dog sitting on the couch all day while I work at a desk. I want his life -- it's called retirement.

      Productivity is the goal of business. Laziness is the goal of life. I've worked hard to be this lazy.

      First world problem meets the Is/Ought existential problem. A lot of people worked hard to be lazy in retirement just to see their retirement plans go poof by

  • "Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem,"

    Once this was achieved humans could outperform self-driving vehicles......

    • No. Meat will never be able to match silicon. Neurons have a refractory period that is painfully slow compared to CURRENT silicon.

      http://www.physiologyweb.com/l... [physiologyweb.com]

      At most, a connected human brain would be a novel input source on a slow but wide bandwidth bus. There is only so much cortex you can put sensors on.

      A true AI would be hobbled by adding a human brain.

  • Mr. Musk, this is not a new idea. In the 70's when computer technology was rapidly increasing people were talking about the "expert systems" with which decisions like loan approvals and stock trades could be automated without the need for a human being. We know what direction that technology is headed in and we know that it is going to continue to reduce the need for human workers. The problem is that the economic system is all structured around humans being required to perform labor to support themselve

  • by infodragon ( 38608 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:30AM (#53856947)

    I didn't read the article. However even if this is bytes there's so much that is missed!

    I look at a tree, recognize it and say "tree" in less than a second.

    I can throw a ball against a wall and catch it before it hits the ground. Now give me a completely different size/weight ball and I can do the same (within tolerances of weight and size).

    There is communication in both of those in which massive amounts of information is consumed and processed. For example the tree, 32 bits of information is relayed. However if I speak it then there is inflection, volume, direction, body language and intent that are all communicated in a short time.

    Even though nothing is typed/spoken with the ball there is an output, catching the ball, that requires a tremendous amount of bandwidth utilized by a human.

    Human Computer interfaces have a long way to go to catch up to these types of things; however, I think someone is raising an alarm about something that has no near term danger and just from the porn perspective will be developed as soon as is humanly possible. Think Matrix and Mouse pushing the girl in the red dress to Neo... The first in the porn industry to do that get's money from 99% of the world's men and a good portion of the world's women. Same thing happened with VHS....

  • It's not even a new idea this century..... This idea goes back to at least the 1970s in anime I saw that merged man and machine together... Hell, the 6 million dollar man merged the two together..

  • Typing is slower than talking.
    Talking is slower than thought.

    But by how much? This question was relevant to designers of old pen and paper RPGs (who needed to be concerned about how much could be communicated in a combat round, with magical aids such as telepathy and other such things that the game rules allowed), but I've never seen it discussed by like, scientists.

    So I googled it.

    http://www.livescience.com/578... [livescience.com]

    But that seems to mostly cover the latency, not the bandwidth.

    Is the bandwidth actually that

  • It would seem language is the limiting factor on output bandwidth, i wonder if, for instance, japanese speakers can think faster than english speakers ..
    • everyone better start learning how to "speak" QAM64 or PSK in the very least..but like i said, the actual communications channel (sound/voice) probably has a lot of room for improvement, the bottleneck is likely language (protocol).
    • Re:language (Score:4, Interesting)

      by flink ( 18449 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @01:29PM (#53858161)

      I can't find the source, but I remember reading that speakers of lower entropy languages simply end up speaking faster than speakers of higher entropy languages. E.g. English on average is spoken more slowly than Spanish by native speakers because English has less redundancy, so errors are more likely to affect received meaning. Overall spoken information rate (bps) remains pretty constant.

  • Humans love to be lazy. Always want someone else to do their dirty, hard work. In the end, SOME people get to live lazy and some people are still slaves to these folks. The end game on this will be far, far worse than what you saw on TV or a movie. Grovel in the spew of the rich.

  • Anyone else notice this? Most of statistical machine intelligence is either optimisation or training neural nets. Symbolic, in the form of expert systems and Cyc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] seems to have submarined (although I saw someone from Lucid AI in Cambridge about a year ago). I'm not sure where we are with hybrids, since I'm not a specialist.

    Things can play Go, Poker and Jeopardy and (this is more sinister) approve people for loans and credit cards. But they lack the huge compositional fle
    • People make these comments everytime AI is brought up.

      No, if you consider AI to be true sapient machine understanding, AI does not exist nor will it exist any time in the near future.

      If you're being more liberal with the term and understanding AI as something that can understand vague inputs and can interpret meaning and be somewhat flexible in how it responds... AI has been around for a while. There are multiple "public definitions" and you're simply not going to get a consensus.

      There was a time that were

  • Great so the next big thing is that we're all gonna be voluntarily turning ourselves into remotely controlled drones.
    No thanks. Its already bad enough with cellphones.

  • ... please ...

    Ok, ya got lucky with PayPal, you're even somewhat smart. But you're not the second coming of Jesus, and the world does not need to hear about every little thought you fart out.

    (though I still like you better than the Orange Menace.)
  • i almost torn my leg off at the knee and fractured my pelvis in a terrible motorcycle accident, I almost died, i hope i can get some bionic parts and become the first real 6 million dollar man, i am willing to donate myself to science if they promise to not make my life any more miserable than it is already
  • . . . YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED INTO THE MUSK COLLECTIVE. . . .

    Really, Slashdot ? "News for Nerds", over an hour, and no Star Trek "Borg" references ??

  • Some people need to accept reality before augmenting it.

  • Years ago a manager who helped disabled people wished there could be some kind of brain implant that could help someone be smarter. I asked, like playing chess? He said yes. I told him that already exists, just give him a laptop with a chess program. All we are doing is playing with different communication interfaces.
  • What about the horrible security problems this will likely entail?

    Like, you're having fun in your thought-controlled robotic bipedal tank, and as your interface is botnetted, someone else decides to have fun and make you crash into a store front. Or :

    - You get sent Goatse, tubgirl or (famous short brazilian movie) and still see it if you close or cover your eyes, and even if you try to run away from it.
    - They get you to pee your pants
    - They mess with your vestibular sense inputs (the human version of motion

  • Based on what we see today with machines and software, we're all pretty aware of the fact that we don't own any of it. Especially those machines that require code to function.

    Imagine your machine implant was made by Microsoft / Apple / Google / Etc who mandates that you will accept periodic software updates to keep it in " top operating condition " and in no way, shape or form would they use any telemetry data gleaned from your prosthetic for any purposes whatsoever. :|

    Your implant would also probably get

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...