Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Logitech G933 Artemis Spectrum 7.1 Headset Giveaway!

G933 Giveaway     Discussion Thread
Chaarrrrginn mah laaazzzeeer by Matilda Mittingforth - Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:07:17 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37458 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1530050837933.jpg -(11103B / 10.84KB, 415x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 11103
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180618113022.htm
>>Researchers have found a way to convert nanoparticle-coated microscopic beads into lasers smaller than red blood cells. These microlasers, which convert infrared light into light at higher frequencies, are among the smallest continuously emitting lasers of their kind ever reported and can constantly and stably emit light for hours at a time, even when submerged in biological fluids such as blood serum.

Small enough to excite individual neurons, which is one of the main use cases. This is actually a huge breakthrough and I'm surprised it's not getting more coverage in the science press. The ability to electrically measure or excite an individual cell is a game changer.

In other miniaturization news, did you know there is now a desktop sized particle accelerator in operation? Think of the possibilities hand-held particle accelerators would unlock. Who will win the race to emit the most micronized beams of radiation directly into your soft fleshy "human" tissues?
>>
Ebenezer Cremmledock - Mon, 02 Jul 2018 19:28:37 EST ID:Lm1OYw7O No.37460 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oh you adorable precious cuteling you didn't
thank you so much
>>
Sea Lioness !!Bwteoy2D - Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:12:54 EST ID:bm6iwg0z No.37464 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531415574481.jpg -(28689B / 28.02KB, 450x337) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Who will win
When did it become a race? Anyway I think it'll be the sexiest and most well funded government institutions that'll be on the forefront in this. Call it a hunch. I just don't see academia having the approval or 'aggressiveness' for human trials? But what do I know?

also
>little hardon collider

So OP what now? Where should the technology be heading? Personally if I were these people I would be using these little lasers to inject codes directly into the brain- imagine having a supercomputer directly interface at the speed of thought for instance. Think of the use cases on that one. If you were able to read patterns of neurons as well... read/write capability
>>
Emma Lightman - Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:53:16 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37465 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531450396041.jpg -(16983B / 16.58KB, 340x270) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>37464
>>When did it become a race?
I guess by 'who' I really mean 'what' as in what technology. Plus I had to spice up my intro somehow...

>> Where should the technology be heading?
Good questions, I think the brain programming avenue is definitely one they are already looking into (even with conventional laser solutions) so those projects may get a boost from this.

I think you could go even farther if you applied this tech smartly, and it would require two other elements; similarly sized microcameras and wireless transmitters. If you created a solution of these three elements (after proving of course that they are biologically safe) and consumed them, allowing them to naturally infiltrate the body's tissues through the circulatory system, there would be so many of them that you could create a visible light map of the interior of the body by bouncing signals back and forth between them, by using algorthimic signal mapping and mesh computing. If you could get these guys to excite light beyond the visible spectrum, you could get a level of full-body imaging, without surgical invasion, that could truly unlock some final frontiers in medicine.

I recall reading a couple years back about a method of tumor ablasion in deep tissue without surgery by using several low-energy beings and carefully pinpointing a specific point of convergence between them. If you could get the laser frequency high enough between a mesh network of these lasers, you could apply pin point cellular ablasion, to kill tumors, clean up debris, electrically excite individual cells...the possibilities are endless.
>>
Emma Lightman - Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:57:18 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37466 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531450638041.gif -(1924708B / 1.84MB, 388x282) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>37465
Low energy beams* not beings...Q wasn't making an appearance. nb
>>
Angus Drupperstane - Tue, 24 Jul 2018 02:39:05 EST ID:o4wnYLFp No.37478 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37458
jesus fucking christ the implications are staggering. Well that does it, no brain implants for me. The real control center is getting put behind a shunt. My robot body will not have wireless features of any kind. At this rate being a cyborg would be more risky than just getting old and trying to cross a 4 lane road during rush hour with a walking cane.
>>
Nathaniel Fabberforth - Mon, 30 Jul 2018 18:24:59 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37484 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37478
Why does everyone suddenly get so much more paranoid when wireless is involved? Some technologies can only function wirelessly. Are wires really that much more secure? Say you have your robot body that is completely shut off from all EM radiation. Is that really going to make you any safer from say, a nano-wire that someone worms into your body to hijack your systems? You're going to have to plug into something to charge, what makes that uplink so much more secure? It's electrons moving down a tube rather than impacting you in a wave, both are theoretically just as possible to use as a means of taking control.

Any technology is capable of subversion, wireless or not. The best defense is a good offense; strong understanding of the technology and strong immune systems. There will never be a technology that is truly impervious to compromise; the human body itself is a very insecure system.
>>
John Bebberdock - Fri, 03 Aug 2018 13:01:53 EST ID:iiwIfPOq No.37486 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37484
Physical contact is still more expensive and harder in all situations. Wireless lowers the risk to the hackers and the convenience and that drives a lot of people.

As you said there's no such thing as an uncrackable system. Part of security is not being low hanging fruit. If hacking is harder work less people will do it. And if you feel bad about it also consider this wisdom.

>You don't need to outrun the hungry dragon
>just outrun the halfling
I'd feel a bit guilty about that mentality but it's another factor as far as security goes. I mean maybe eventually halflings die out, but then again if there's only a few dragons.

Okay so that's not very futuristic. Maybe people will wise up but if it remains uncommon I think there will always be rubes. Unless you're a high value target it's the rubes you need to beat not the hackers. If that doesn't apply there's still going to be less hackers if it's harder work.
>>
Ernest Hashberk - Fri, 03 Aug 2018 13:51:50 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37487 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37486
Well all that is true, but when you're trying to sell people on a solution that suddenly introduces them to a new world of potentially being eaten by a dragon, telling them 'just don't be a halfling' isn't a very strong sales pitch...

Ultimately, I think we will end up subscribing to security services for our digital property in the same way we subscribe for security for our physical and legal bodies (police and lawyers.) The quality of our protection will be based on how much effort we can manage to have put into it (whether that's shuffling around actual currency, or reputation, or merely time-sharing on the minds of security super-AIs.) The best defense will always be understanding the security and technological systems yourself.

For example, there's those wireless pods that you can buy a subscription with. The subscription pays to have a set of AIs and a human support team manage the security of your network, and theoretically, if something goes wrong, they could be liable to you for compensation. I think that's a best-case scenario for the way control over cybernetic systems could go down.
>>
Hamilton Furrykadge - Sun, 05 Aug 2018 09:39:48 EST ID:iiwIfPOq No.37488 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37487
>'just don't be a halfling' isn't a very strong sales pitch
You're telling me. I mean it's my most reliable defense now and I still hate it. Well that and trying to avoid large caves that smell of burning.

Understanding security yourself is well and good but if everyone has to do it then they're not doing and understanding something else. Society ends up allocating huge amounts of resources to defending itself against hackers. Some sort of nearly as effective consumer solution is best.

Ideally one that's got some sort of standards/ethics and contractual protection. I'd like to think that every government would demand that other governments can't get backdoors and snoop via this software but we know the truth is that they'll all settle with "you can sell it here as long as I have a backdoor too" and that means holes other people can use too. So the best we can hope for is ethical third parties with decent standards. But we'll only know who they are by word of mouth because governments will all label them rogue and dangerous and with bots and the like it'll be hard to know the good from the bad. Ironically we'll need word of mouth.
>>
Eugene Farryshaw - Thu, 23 Aug 2018 19:27:48 EST ID:NYRJgif1 No.37497 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37465
>without surgical invasion
Well here we go with my infatuation with speed- imagine the time spent finding just the right nanoparticle, with all of its interferometric (sp) and computational properties, just a total bitch and we're getting into >9000 man years of research all the while 1) there already is a way to interface with cortex (seen that shit fly a f-18) via chip 2) microcomputers will do it better (?). Now disregarding the land speed of an unladen halfling for a moment (which I'll need a craniotomy to even begin to process) and getting into exactly what is needed in the world today it's not 'deep' brain access per se it's more like PFC's working memory, extreme capsule, motor areas right all stuff that's quite near the surface (yeah you miss out on short term memory, pain/pleasure, primary action selection- but there's a workaround for that). Development time: short. Reqs: lab, tissue culture, various chip designs depending on desired interfacing.

Of course you won't know until you start taking concrete steps. Damn I should start already. They'll be more to say about this later I'm sure gotta run now though OP
>>
Martin Forringman - Sun, 26 Aug 2018 16:57:01 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37498 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37497
Well, we've been taking concrete steps on a lot of that stuff for quite some time. The progress we are making is promising, but it's largely on trajectory (i.e. we're neither really ahead of the game nor falling behind in terms of where we expected to be at this point on the neuroscience front) so I think in 15 years we will have a more robust answer to this specific problem. We still can't say for sure whether minor cognitive augmentation will be sufficient for a hard take-off, but it should be interesting either way.
>>
Augustus Blathershaw - Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:22:10 EST ID:ykjs79E4 No.37499 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1535588530928.gif -(1981604B / 1.89MB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>37498
What would be sufficient for a hard take-off? What I'm imagining is layer 1/2/3 of the neocortex being controlled by a supercomputer, focusing attention on areas where solutions to mental/motor tasks are. It's not a silver bullet by far but I'm sure you have a more solid idea of what a hard take-off looks like: the shedding of biological bonds, a stainless steel road leading into super-intelligence? What technology do we need?
>>
Eliza Fuckingwater - Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:27:09 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37500 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37499
I'm just saying that it wouldn't be sufficient (alone) not that it wouldn't help. I think any solution that requires a cyborg to reach superintelligence isn't as susceptible to the positive feedback loop that defines the singularity concept. Yes, there would be a positive feedback, but it would be slower, mainly because of the latency introduced by the biological component of the system, so that's why I think that (by itself, all other things staying the same) only counts for a 'soft take-off' category.

But of course, such a development wouldn't happen by itself. A computer scientist with a supercomputer neocortex could probably design super computers much more efficiently than normal humans and maybe some types of super computers, so that one further level of recursion might be all it takes to create an infinitely recursively self-improving synthetic intelligence.

Maybe not, maybe cyborg-brains would be enough for a true singularity. Idk though, the latency of the neuron is truly phenomenally long -- way way slower than the speed of even ancient transistors. That's why I'm a little unsure.
>>
Archie Parringnit - Tue, 09 Oct 2018 00:04:26 EST ID:JQqIF6hd No.37514 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>concrete steps
#mewtoo


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.