Thread 106215604

Is mind reading technology actually feasible or is it just scifi shit?

>>106215604 (OP)
This was 15 years ago
https://youtu.be/watch?v=FLb9EIiSyG8

>>106215604 (OP)
we can already do this (to a degree)

>>106215604 (OP)
it is feasible but the reading device needs to collect information from within the brain
unfortunately

>>106215604 (OP)
>>>/x/40887701

>>106215604 (OP)
conscience is just electricity moving around in your brain, technically it's doable, i odn't know how powreful the computer need to be to do that in real-time though

>>106215604 (OP)

not sure but there are features like aur microphone camera ami me copilot selinux operatoruser and sometimes tasks are repetitive

>>106215604 (OP)
obv

>>106215604 (OP)
It is
I read it in someone else's mind
No, I won't tell

>>106215604 (OP)
CIA has had this tech for like 60 years my dude

>>106215604 (OP)
We've had both read and write for coming up on three decades now via artificial online cybernetics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUSZfEBTwRc

>>106215604 (OP)
shut up pepe

>>106218544
Also, just a reminder, it's actually pretty pedestrian at this point. People know it's there and it's even rented out for relatively cheap.

>>106215604 (OP)
you keep your cellphone on you
we know a whole lot about radiowaves and em waves
studies on eeg are also robust.
i wouldnt doubt that they can take eeg.
we also have companies solyley devouted to analytics.
also consider bofeedback mechanisms.
heart rate, eye movement perspiration, voice inflection. theres alot of things that I think these data compaies capture that arent explicitly stated.
theres alot of "nonverbal" communication data that has been captued for analytics that are pretty effective at predicting behavior.

>>106218627
They don't need any of that they just show a picture taylor swift along with text like "is your parents/religion holding you back?" every morning.

It turns out that's all it takes.

>>106215604 (OP)
It's entirely feasible but it would be instantly banned because society becomes infeasible when it's discovered that even non-pedophiles have flashes of what amounts to CP entering their head when they hear the word.

its also alot easier to put suggestion into your mind than extracting such private information.

Yeah, magic is real.
But technology?

>>106218645
Both are pretty much trivial if you use non-free software or hosted social media with cybernetics.

>>106218681
do you think that maybe the reason for quantum mechanics and uncertainty is that the particle doesnt really want to be measured?
perhaps they can read your mind. but what about your liver or kidneys or intentesines.
what if they can read your guts?which would be easier?

>>106218796
You're way overthinking this man. They just watch your scroll speed and which links you click to build up a single layer neural network.

That's it. It's super low tech even by 2000s standards because it just doesn't take a whole lot.

>>106215604 (OP)
It's possible to read basic stuff in a crude way, but it requires sticking lots of electrodes to your head and training systems to correlate the info actually recorded with what you say it means. You absolutely would know it's happening! (Some researchers are trying to use MRI scanning instead, but that's even larger equipment.)
Getting more information would require sticking enormous numbers of very fine electrodes literally inside the brain, and an awful lot more training (because there's no master plan for what neuron does what; that's not how brains work). The physical density of neural connections means that monitoring what's going on is stupid difficult.
Doing it remotely, without your knowledge? Total scifi. Or schizo bullshit. Take your pick.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3351255

There's an interactive demo for this somewhere but I can't find it so you'll just have to read the paper and imagine how it works.

>>106215604 (OP)
depends. if its not invasive then not much leaks outside of it. if invasive then ... probably doable theoretically, but it would have to be so invasive that you have other problems at that point lol

>>106215604 (OP)
feasible and already happening

>>106218874
i wouldn't doubt that , but specificity can be refined in other social engineering methods like displaying reactionary content for them as some sort of stimulus.
becuase its all a bunch of interconnected data points not just that im reading your mind in a very crude way, but thats theres countless other data points that can correlate.

>>106218953
it's simpler to induce what to think about than read what you're thinking about.

its already here, goy

>>106215604 (OP)
mind reading trick
OP gonna hold?

>>106215604 (OP)
learn to read people's minds. you can make a good guess just by interacting with them. read freud's work.

>>106219102
>>106220292
this is probably for some glowie agency use, to get important shit out of people trained to hide it or take any amount of abuse. your normie gonna spill the beans when threatened with some fine lmao