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
-
I think language is the bottleneck here. Brain computer interfaces wouldn't encode content in a 1 dimensional sequence of symbols. It would be more like vision.
We already have visual interfaces to computers. It doesn't have to be "like" vision -- it can be literally vision, an extremely high throughput neural interface that every human has spent years tuning. This is *already a thing*. It's a screen.
-
-
But we don't have vision like bandwidth as output. Even though we generate pictures in our minds, we lack the ability to show them to others. Also it's thinkable to have a high bandwidth connection which is not figurative.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But given that vision, sound, text, etc are all different, and good for their own things, why can't there be new sense modalities yet to be discovered with BCIs?
-
These could make understanding faster by actually giving more processing power. Just like our vision module strongly pre-processes things for us, we could have modules that do all sort of things, like imaging *knowing* the solution of an equation instantly everytime you see one
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.