• Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Conceptually? I’m all for it. Why wouldn’t I be.

    In practice, we live in a capitalist society and I don’t want an arm that makes me watch an advertisement before I open a bag of chips.

  • angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not against it on principle, but there’s no way I’d get it knowing about the way the corporations that have the resources to make it happen operate.

  • jetA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    As a already augmented human, i fully support this.

    Glasses, portable electronic tether, surgery…

  • OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wearable > implantation

    Just a security concern. Augmenting is great but we don’t want the augmentations to become a liability. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, if we invent a robotic arm replacement for someone who’s lost one, the security concerns are generally lower than the quality of life improvement of having a functioning arm 99% of the time, and there’s an argument for the potential ability for rapid detachment in case of emergency, but once we get into subdermal and brain implants, we’re in a territory where these things can’t be easily removed in case of emergency, and the risks get immense.

    • flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Depends on the implant. I have to imagine the only way this kind of thing could be adopted mainstream is for it to be open source, the risks are just too high to let some random company put obfuscated proprietary tech in your brain

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This sparks joy: Augmentation to help people become the selves that they would truly like to be.

    This does not: Some kind of transhuman singularity dystopia where we have replaced ourselves not out of a soul-driven yearning for our true self, but in service of a cold, quantitative utilitarian calculus that says we must shed our skin because it is logically inferior.

    • Shikadi@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Both. Everyone is afraid of AI taking over but it’s just a tool. Human augmentation is way more likely to lead there. But in the mean time, Stephen Hawking lived quite a while only being able to speak with augmentations. Just like any other technology, it will be at the very least researched in fear that someone else will first. So might as well embrace it

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not afraid of AI taking over. I’m afraid of the TESCREAL suicide cult that wants AI to take over. If they are the ones who ultimately push a singularity button, because they believe it’s a moral imperative to push the singularity button, we’re going to have a really shitty rapture.

  • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it’ll be cool in like, 50 years once the technology is there. Right now all it does is kill monkeys.

  • David@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m currently wearing a continuous glucose monitor. Does that count? I’m all for anything voluntary especially if it improves quality of life without impeding on others.