You're viewing a single thread.
Nobody fearmongering in this thread seems to have any idea how it works.
A brain chip would connect to a specific region of your brain. For example, in the case of a physical disability it would only need to connect to your motor neurons using read-only connectors.
If you specifically had them implant read/write connections into your visual cortex, then sure, someone could hack it and play ads in your head but that's kind of on you at that point.
Also you don't seem to either.
There is no such thing as a "read-only connector." Electrical signals can go down a wire both ways. It is up to the manufacturer of the chip to decide what pins are read and write, which is up to the governing body to regulate and restrict.
Not to mention that we are 10-20 years out from that kind of tech as development has been drastically slowing down in general. The best we can do as humans so far with the funds we put into this is stimulate general areas with current pulses to essentially cover up or stimulate the area's nervous response to relieve pain. We can't even accurately measure brain signals yet with fine enough detail to do much more than control a direction. Though that is coming along better.
The other applications close to this are for controlling muscles for sleep apnea, limb motor skills, heart muscles, etc... and are even "easier" to control.
If the tech becomes available to effect the video and audio brain receptors directly and is owned by corporations, you can bet your sweet ass they will make everything read/write and blast that thing so full of ads and harvest every bit of data they can to make a profit.
Source: electronic engineer working in the implantable device medical field
I'm sure something can be done to prevent outbound signals from the device.
Yes, something could be done... by the exact company who has a direct incentive to serve ads in the first place. Are you going to install a 2nd chip made to block outgoing signals in the 1st chip?
It will never ever be solved by trusting the company who designs it to do the right thing.
That's not the argument, you are saying it's impossible to build a device that has input but no output to the same system. I'm saying you are wrong.
Sure, I'm wrong about something that wasn't even the argument and I already clarified is possible, technically, but completely impractical for the application and does not exist.
By all means, send me the part number of a read-only connector. That would probably be very useful ti my work.
I hope I will duck off before we go full dystopian
Why couldn't you build a "read only" connector? I mean sure, wires conduct both ways obviously, but diodes and other one-way conductors are a thing right?
The other point of only putting the implant in the place it's needed and where it can't make you see and hear things seems valid too.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be other risks and issues with the whole thing, but I feel like the "they'll put ads in your brain" thing is kind of a ridiculous fear.
No, because brain signals are so low voltage compared to silicon voltage thresholds that if you put a diode in to block outgoing signal, it would just reduce all incoming signal to noise. On an IC where there is very fine silicon property control it is probably possible though.
Let's say that it is possible, it would still have to be implemented on the PCB or more likely, the IC itself. Guess who's literal job it is to design and make all of the decisions on what is possible would be? The exact same people who would benefit financially from enabling that functionality and serving ads. The point of all of this is that there are 1000 ways to make that functionality not be available on the design, but the decision to make it available or not is made by the people who would earn a lot of money from it and benefit directly.
Every single major technology that has the ability to display ads eventually does, without fail. Every single one. Why would an implanted chip made by the same companies be any different?
Again, I think it will be a VERY long time before we have the sort of fine control and deep understanding of the brain to effectively control sight and sound. I think 20 years might have actually be generous and it might be 30-40 unless we hit a breakthrough in biological computing or something.
Until then, there would be absolutely nothing to worry about. Musty's "brain chip" would never have this capability and would be much more likely in causing strokes than any other danger.
The problem is that if it is unquestioned, implemented, and normalized that "everyone has a brain chip" then, just like smart phones, they will slowly change until the tech does become available and maybe they just have an ad on startup, maybe they just have an ad here or there, until the entire thing just becomes a vehicle for ads like smartphones are now.
i hate to say this but the last sentence would be victim blaming