When the tech is openly talked about like this, we have to assume that it is already refined/perfected and just waiting for roll out. If you ask me, they would roll it out before 2030....making it optional in the beginning (like the microchips are). Why wait for 2169 or even 2035? Our lives are going to be different post-Reset anyway.
Certainly, only the recent past of technology is revealed.
However, that doesn't mean it won't be (which is already in high-access labs) as it is presented. And not, as some believe, perfected non-invasive. Maybe. I don't see it, though. I see the opposite: it is in this direction that work is being done (I guess you know for where I am talking about) - the developments, which is written in the fundamental programs, continues intensively, while growing the propaganda, for example, to "solves the important problem of destigmatizing cyborg people and ridding society of technophobia" (as says in the formulation of the summary of a film, "Chip inside me", sponsored by the Ministry of Culture, there).
As I see it, or I think I see it, they can't do without putting a hardware part. Have they already done an experiment with "temporary chips" in which they checked how the transmission of information takes place with the participation of so many "nodes" in the information network of a new generation? Or did they put a first part of the component to finish with the hardware part?
I don't know why many people think that "this cannot happen (en masse) because the majority will not accept it", they themselves will not accept it. But, people are born make children, die and continue through their children (as they themselves are an extension of their parents). So - the human race (individual nations, genera, etc.). You die and move on through your children. In that sense, I like to quote
Chulok:
"I think the attitude to technology itself will change dramatically in the next 10 years. Generations will be updated, for the new ones — the Internet is not a miracle, and smart watches are not a gadget. It's all already part of their life as a shirt. It is not so important whether it will be embedded in the body or in clothes. Let's look at the history of mankind, it has always experimented. It is difficult to say how inevitable the cyborgization of man is, but his merging with technology is indeed inevitable."
Can it be argued? And it's not a great philosophy, it's quite simple.
*But, it's a good thing there are experts to calm the ball by breaking the myths, and give hope.
For example, two days before Musk announced his success with the first implantation of a smart brain chip, Off-Guardian published the article:
“Here Come the Cyborgs: Mating AI with Human Brain Cells.” January 28, 2024, By VN Alexander.
There, the author eruditically explains how the so-called biodigital convergence, or merging of humans with machines, is unfeasible fiction, and she scoffs (with subtle sarcasm suitable for a sophisticated and educated lady, of course).
Off-Guardian kindly provides a link to Madame Alexander’s personal website,
where, in her biography, we read:
“She is a Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center alum, former Public Scholar for the New York Council for the Humanities, and 2020 Fulbright Scholar at the Digital Humanities Lab at ITMO University in St Petersburg, Russia. She is a member of the Third Way of Evolution group and her work in saltational evolutionary theory appears in Fine Lines: Nabokov’s Scientific Art, published by Yale University Press, which has received much praise from major international publications. ” And her full CV
continues: "..Her honors include a Rockefeller Foundation Residency (Bellagio, Italy), a Jewish Foundation for the Education of Women Fellowship, two Art & Science Lab Residencies (Santa Fe), Alfred Kazin Award for Best Dissertation (GC, CUNY), the Washington Prize for Fiction.."
So "not everything is bad," as Off-G says in his popular weekly column.
(**Now I'm reading again, and in addition to Dr. Alexander's rejoicing of "Musk's failures" (two days before he announced a primary brain implant), she also
says:
"And I don’t see the point of cannibalizing biology so that computer scientists can make robots pass the Turing Test better. I do see, for example, NASA’s Artemis team using redesigned technology to create better robots, whose proprioception avails itself of a fluid medium capable of generating interference patterns that help orient it while it explores the lunar surface. Imitating the way biological organisms process information to make better, more reliable and efficient tools, seems common sense.
But I don’t see the point of making tools seem human—or of mixing human and electronic parts."
She doesn't see it. Аnd what does
"Susanna Gordleeva, winner of the 2023 Presidential Prize in Science and Innovation for Young Scientists" see, who received her award for
"the development of models and technologies of neuromorphic artificial intelligence based on biophysical neuron-astrocyte network models for memristive electronics." - The same thing that Dr. Alexander commented on (that he sees meaning in it, but without combining living matter with electronics).
"— In what areas can such a neural network be used?
Susanna Gordleeva: In fact, in any place where information processing is needed. But one of the promising tasks, perhaps, is the creation of neural implants or neural interfaces. Such systems record brain activity. Therefore, it is necessary that information processing should be carried out with the help of systems adapted to biological mechanisms."
And
such things.
(It's not advertising. My threads are of so little interest that even if they remain the only active ones, no one will read them.