[kylecazar]

The invasion of privacy is the obvious problem. But it isn't going to be functionally very useful to me either.

You're going to capture hours of walking and/or seemingly doing nothing, exchanging pleasantries/small-talk/banter. Without access to my thoughts, this is stuck in some superficial layer -- useless other than to maybe surface a reminder of something trivial that I forgot (and that's not worth it). Life happens in the brain, and you won't have access to that (yet).

[aurintex]

Just to clarify, the “reminder” example was just one possible use case. The idea isn’t to capture everything or pretend to read thoughts, but to offer flexible support based on context you control.

Curious though: if there were a way for an AI to understand your thoughts, would that even be something you’d want? Or is the whole concept off-limits for you?

[kylecazar]

Understood!

It's an interesting question -- I've thought about it a lot in the context of some hypothetical brain interface. There are a lot of unknowns but I personally would go for it with the very hard constraint that it be the equivalent of read-only (no agents here) and local (no cloud).

As potentially scary as it seems, I would not be able to fight the temptation to participate under those conditions. It would make elusive thought a thing of the past.

[aurintex]

A very interesting insight. I hadn't expected that, but of course it opens up new possibilities. Sometimes it would be really interesting to crawl back through older thoughts :)

[Froedlich]

If it was local - implanted, or on my body, it might be a useful tool with the correct training.

If it was networked, it would need to have much tighter security than the current internet.

If it was just a terminal to some corporate server running unknown software for purposes I wouldn't necessarily agree to, nope, nope, nopity-nope. Even if it didn't start off as a device for pushing propaganda and advertising, there's no realistic expectation that it wouldn't evolve into that over time.