Comment by consumer451
6 days ago
Please see my bio for the full rant. The key take-away is:
> While we missed the boat on Internet tracking, there is still time to avoid sailing through the final frontier of neural tracking.
> Thanks to the BCI, we will soon be offered the trade of our privacy for the convenience of password-free login and faster typing. Next, there will be a quick TSA neural scan prior to boarding...
This is the most pessimistic take on this tech here. You can view anything with the same lens.
I ain't young. I have seen this all play out before. It's just extrapolating based on what we did with cookies, browsing history, cell tower data, etc... unless we pass very strict neural privacy laws, why wouldn't it go the same way?
The decent news is that if you search "neural privacy laws," you will find some states are already on top of it, a bit. We need national laws, in every country ASAP. This needs to happen before there are billions in economic inertia behind BCIs.
I’m trying to not be snarky here, but it is difficult to have an optimistic take about an advertising company working on mind reading technology. At some point we have to call a spade a spade, I think.
Share your concern.
One point is that this is not “mind reading”. This is “motor command reading”. This is really no different than placing recording electrodes near motor neurons that direct vocalization. Or in terminal nerve fibers that move finger and wrist muscles.
For Meta this is a PR stunt of the type that I saw staged at a Human Brain Project demo in Budapest in 2012 in with an EEG-instrumented operator tried to move a robot around the stage with HBP leaders trying to narrate the “wonders of it all”. Sadly it was one of those classic demo failures in front of 200 neuroscientists and EU science bureaucrats. Didn’t stop the EU from funding the application the next year. About 1 billion euros not well spent.
The way to not get the most pessimistic outcome is to work for a better one, and to do that you have to first recognize the danger
I agree in that it is pessimistic. I strongly doubt it is the most pessimistic take.
Saying "this is the most pessimistic take" doesn't make for good discussion.
Something can have "good takes" but still run an unacceptable risk of ending badly
You should probably view anything meta does through the same lens. They can make great tech but they utterly ruin it with their creepiness.
at this point i feel like its just painfully obvious that if this for whatever became feasible/widespread/scalable, it would absolutely be implemented by the powers that be and willed into fruition by gaslighting, fear mongering and misinformation. i dont know how much more proof this world needs that ruling classes can and do want to just subjugate the hell out of everyone & enforce their world view on the world around them
It's good point! However, one of the main benefits of a technology like this, would be not really for everyday people, but for people with handicap or a speech impediment.
I personally have a stammer. While mine is less severe, and I doesn't need directly it, I know several people that would quite be glad of the benefits that it could bring to them. (Example: pass online interviews).
I agree however of the privacy concerns. We could limit it in a first time to medical devices for example, or have some privacy laws in place.
I totally respect that, and it would be really cool technology in general. However, it is truly last frontier of privacy. We can't just treat this as yet another little thing.
Yes, Meta focusing on this type of research does set off alarm bells for me. I suspect this isn’t about some altruistic intention to help people with disabilities but something a little more surveillance oriented.
Imagine the ad profile data value that this would unlock. CPC - > Cost per thought?
While allowing the user to type with their mind, we detected signs of depression. Full court press on all ad partners aiming for that group.
While allowing the user to type with their mind, we detected that this user pictures driving fast, our insurance partners have the user profile updated.
While allowing the user to type with their mind, we detected signs of <insert any fleeting thought that you would never act upon> - as required by local regulations, they are now labeled by the state as <that>.
Apologies, "CPC - > Cost per thought?" was very sloppy.
It's an improvement in CPA or ROAS.
While I share your privacy concerns, one should also ask how realistic such a scenario is with non-invasive BCIs due to their limited nature. It does not mean that neural tracking isn't possible with this technology, however, I would question if this technology is feasible for consumer products and wide adaptation.
I'm not sure whether to be worried or not and I am not talking about whatever you wrote but for your own sake , it seems to be extremely paranoid style of writing
It is impossible not to sound like a kook when discussing this topic.
I think anyone in 1995, who was accurately predicting our current state of privacy would have sounded like a paranoid lunatic as well.