this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
180 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3196 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Makes sense but imagine 10, 20 years in the future from now? I doubt there be enough difference to ofset the risks by then.

Should we really rush out an invasive implant that barely works rather then perfect what we will naturally want to use in the future anyway?

[โ€“] Bimfred@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

We (as in humanity) can continue to develop both EEG caps and direct implants. The technology is young and there's no telling what side benefits and additional functionality either one can have.

And the implant, much like early EEG devices, barely works for now. Imagine what they'll be capable of 10-20 years down the line.