Personally, I am deeply skeptical of brain-computer interfaces for consumer use cases, because existing physical interfaces such as screens and keyboards do not represent a meaningful bottleneck to our use of technology
Show this thread
The bottlenecks are rather in the affordances offered by end applications, and in our own minds. Even typing would not be meaningfully faster with a 100% accurate BCI (which is total science-fiction today)
-
-
And information intake (orders of magnitude harder to pull off) most definitely couldn't be any faster than plain reading. Our current 5,000 year-old tech is already maxing out our understanding bandwidth. Which is evident in the fact that speed reading simply doesn't work
Show this thread -
If screen + mouse + keyboard is good enough for a 300 APM pro-gamer, it's good enough for you. The friction of physical micro-movement is just not significant compared to the speed at which the mind itself moves
Show this thread -
The mind is a slow beast, with its most basic reactions occurring on a timescale of 100ms. Grasping nontrival abstract concepts requires entire *seconds*
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Francois, the speed issue is just one dimension however. If a proper neural interface (NI) was designed for typing/texting, and *even* if it was a little slower, it would still mitigate you having to *do* anything mechanical. Along that dimension, NIs would shine and unburden us.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.