> My AI is a natural extension of me. It feels like a sixth sense and another limb. I wonder about a problem, feel as though I’m literally surfing the web, see glimpses of the websites, get flashes of intuition about the problem, and ultimately derive the answer.

We call this AI psychosis.

Yeesh. I guess that makes one of us. Truly one of the more horrifying short stories I’ve read.

I cannot comprehend the output from AI fast enough for the speed difference between a verbal and thought response to matter.

Not to mention the privacy nightmare of logging my raw thoughts in a corporate environment and potentially routing them to an LLM provider.

>Thought-to-text, aka telepathy

No, that's not telepathy. I'd leave the term alone. Consider it to be reserved for... well... telepathy!

But sure, you're right. Reading is not a deterministic/injective mapping of text to thoughts.

Apart from the trouble of defining what a thought is, independent from the person who thinks it.

Me thinking of grabbing a mug of coffee is a different thought from you doing the same... defining "thought" pulls in a whole jungle of epistemology (maybe I should say philosophy, more broadly, I'm not in the field).

Is there an abstract concept of "the thought of raising your left index finger"? Or "the thought of remembering severe pain"? Etc etc

ever since Elon did his "promise full self-driving every year" thing, entrepreneurs been on a weird sort of fiction escalator.

thought-to-text is incredible. imagine doing something that remarkable with your life and feeling the need to exaggerate.

How much are those people making to be able to afford things like this?

Under current US law, can people entering the US be subjected to mind-reading?

When we have GPT-7 it will still do AI-speak?!

- still annoyed by AI-speak

What a bold vision!

The only thing I would actually want this for would be a dream logger. Extremely invasive and quite dangerous otherwise.

It doesn’t even really need to work of course.

Unfortunately I think this is inevitable because as a species we perform a steady march toward collective desires for items of science fiction, so start your adversarial double-think practice now.

In a couple years?! Get over the technical hurdles, do you think PEOPLE will be ready to telepathically talk to a computer in A COUPLE OF YEARS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jroQCyWwEgE

Neuralink exists since 10 years, is in clinical trial, has been implanted on a living human being in 2 years ago.

The lack of adults in the room to set rules around moral hazard is hardly her generation's fault.

What collapse of web 2.0?

Technically the website we're on is web 2.0 because we're interacting as users.

I don't think it's naiveté on their part to want to build new things. I think you're just jaded and hyperfocusing on the negatives.

It is been 10 years ago when I looked through some research in that area. Back then it was the problem to get enough good signal. Has the situation changed radically here for non-invasive electrodes or portable detectors?

I understand that the approach would be to turn weak signal, context, and LLM based signal processing into useful human computer interaction. For everything else, I have the feeling we are still in speculative territory.

And this will provoke “well we need to regulate AI then”. No, you need to regulate poking around in people’s brains without asking them before that becomes normal.

> It’s hard to collect enough data using invasive methods. Few people want a chip in their brain! But non-invasive methods are getting much better. The hardware is improving and getting cheaper, though I apologize for being vague about the particularities of our hardware.

Can this technology also do text to thought?

Ah, yes, very joyful indeed.

Also, fuck those interns! They're just too smart to keep up with.

I read "race conditions" all over this vision.

"I am a former-OpenAI employee and looking for investors to fund my AI startup."

Dead in the water.

It's like an omlette. Can't make a neural interface worth a damn without cracking open a few skulls.

I immediately thought, ironically, your neurology wrote that with a computer and HN humans' neurologies read it with computers.

What a terrible idea.