China Has a Controversial Plan for Brain-Computer Interfaces (www.wired.com)
from alb_004@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.ml on 01 May 2024 05:23
https://lemm.ee/post/30835179

#technology

threaded - newest

queermunist@lemmy.ml on 01 May 2024 05:56 next collapse

When Elon Musk tortures monkeys to death with brain chips it’s innovation, but when China does it it’s “controversial” and “concerning”

gregorum@lemm.ee on 01 May 2024 06:44 next collapse

When Musk does anything it’s controversial and concerning.

Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 01 May 2024 06:54 next collapse

NGL I think it should all brain chips should fall under “concerning” and “controversial”

The artificial eyes that existed in the past come to mind.

For those unfamiliar, when the companies that made them went under support for the devices vanished and the people who got them were left with broken and defunct hardware still stuck in their heads

Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works on 01 May 2024 09:29 next collapse

Bionics require right to repair and open sourced software.

devfuuu@lemmy.world on 01 May 2024 17:15 collapse

If only the people doing these stuff cared…

x4740N@lemmy.world on 01 May 2024 07:49 collapse

Which is why I beleive companies making medical hardware should be forced to open source the firmware and software as well as document how the hardware works and have it be open to the public in a read only mode while qualified people can make updates to the software and firmware

p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 02 May 2024 05:19 collapse

That requires a functional Congress, which is really only achieved by getting rid of the GOP disease in all three branches.

Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml on 01 May 2024 07:08 next collapse

parenti quote parenti quote

highalectical@lemmygrad.ml on 01 May 2024 17:17 collapse

@ParentiBot@lemmygrad.ml

ParentiBot@lemmygrad.ml on 01 May 2024 17:17 collapse
The quote

> In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.

[deleted] on 01 May 2024 07:46 next collapse
.
HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world on 01 May 2024 06:09 collapse

Oh shut up most people shit all over musk

Lemongrab@lemmy.one on 01 May 2024 16:51 collapse

Most people in our social circles. Trust me, I spoke with random people about Musk and his brain chips and they thought he was a genius. Elon’s tech is years behind the research he stole the ideas from.

ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml on 01 May 2024 07:51 next collapse

The way they explain the use case of cognitive enhancements it doesn’t sound as controversial as the title implies. Unless I misunderstood it.

exanime@lemmy.today on 01 May 2024 22:53 collapse

Did you not read it was China doing it? That’s all that’s needed to portrait anything as concerning, threatening and/or controversial

To be clear China’s government is terrible, but they could literally discover the cure for all diseases and make dogs live as long as their owners and it would still be reported in negative light because it’s China and not the USA

match@pawb.social on 01 May 2024 09:19 next collapse

What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output

fnafdesktopfan111@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 01 May 2024 13:50 collapse

The Warrior’s bland acronym, MMI, obscures the true horror of this monstrosity. Its inventors promise a new era of genius, but meanwhile unscrupulous power brokers use its forcible installation to violate the sanctity of unwilling human minds. They are creating their own private army of demons.

highalectical@lemmygrad.ml on 01 May 2024 17:17 next collapse

This is rad, especially the non invasive BCIs that enhance your brain.

yogthos@lemmy.ml on 01 May 2024 17:42 collapse

imagine saying that US civilian science is not linked to military research with a straight face 🤡

But Margaret Kosal, associate professor of international affairs at Georgia Institute of Technology, says there’s a key difference between how the US and China approach BCI research. “The US has not explicitly linked our civilian science with our military research,” she says. “China’s strategy fundamentally links the military and the commercial, and that is why there is concern.”