Those are the two sides of the market? AI addicts and privacy enthusiasts? Doubtful. Most people want an internet terminal that doubles as a strong digital camera, I think.
Which of the software features will GrapheneOS keep? Will the camera be a first class citizen? I can do without the AI stuff and the audio tuning, but will you keep them too?
GrapheneOS isn't based on the stock OS of the devices it supports. It will be the same GrapheneOS on Motorola devices as it is on Pixels. It's only the firmware, drivers and other device support code which will be different. We'll gradually work on supporting all the hardware features. We plan to add support for installing and using Motorola's camera app similarly to how we support using Pixel Camera on Pixels.
Unless they're more interested in selling themselves (getting bought by one of the big smart glasses producers), then the webdesign would make sense, but I would never insinuate such a thing.
Agreed and the fanboying here is very out of character for HN, especially for a product that is likely to be delayed, will possibly never ship, will have an insane error rate if it ever ships. The usecases exist but are niche compared to typing when speech isn't an option or speaking when typing isn't convenient.
This is bait, with the goal of one of the smart glasses producers like Meta/Apple buying them out - that is, IF the tech can be improved enough after the pre-order money came in.
Well it's much more preferable than the typical doomer sentiment of Hackernews. I've tried the product, it's not a scam and works. Whether they can package it up and ship it in time is another question.
I think quite a bit of this phenomenon should be attributed to how young adults choose their education/career path. We're still in the "you can be whatever you want" and "if you make your passion into your work, you won't work a single day in your life" phase of the civilizational boom/bust cycle. Do high schoolers familiarize themselves with the supply and demand per field or do they wing that part/ignore it? For the fields that they feel pulled to, do they consider which people become financially well off after graduating in it? E.g. is it mainly authors, public speakers and professors, all basically in educational roles, making the field a government subsidized ponzi scheme? And do they on an ethical level consider which layer of society's hierarchy of needs their future expertise will feed into? As in, does the subject revolve around pleasure maxing in the upper echelons, or will it be useful for infrastructure, supply chains, defense, health,...
It seems that most people wing most of those points in a pursuit for what they think their life's passion to be at 18 years old. And neither do any governments in America or Europe really step in to incentivize socially benefitial choices, at least afaik, instead relying on the import of immigrant experts while at the same time experiencing massive brain drain to better off countries, e.g Germans moving to Switzerland en masse.
> And neither do any governments in America or Europe really step in to incentivize socially benefitial choices
NYS, as much as I complain about the state government, does actually do this a bit. One is the BOCES program which is an adult education system that teach trades, and highschoolers can go to for free (Think diesel mechanics, carpentry, and also things like computer repair or networking). The other is that there is a system for free associate degrees for adults 25+ (recently the requirement for them to not have a college degree was removed so that there can be reskilling), but the limitation is career focused jobs. So you can get a free associates degree in nursing, health sciences, engineering technology, metal fabrication, etc. but not in say literature.
What is it like to be your left kidney? Your brain is connected to it through nerves, which ofc are conscious too in your worldview. If fungus and rocks are consciously linked, there should be a conscious link between your brain and your kidney. Yet, you have no idea what your kidney is experiencing every day, it certainly doesn't have any deep thoughts. And when the kidney gets taken out of your body, your conscious experience won't change. When your brain gets surgically or violently altered on the other hand...
I don't know, we don't communicate in a way that I could ask it.
But the principles of biological organization are often fractal. If you observe a phenomenon at one level (selection acting on an organism, say) you can often zoom out and see it again (acting at the ecosystem level) or you can zoom in and see it (at the organ level, the tissue level, or even on certain macromolecules).
It's not necessary for me to be able to strike up a conversation with my kidney for me to see that it's well situated to experience changes in my diet a bit like how we experience el nino, the machinations of my immune system might be like politics to it. I'll never know for sure, so I err on the side of caution.
The panpsychism fad seems like late Millennials'/Gen Z's cope with death. My greater point is that the same way you "are" your kidney today (or how you "are" the nearest mushroom, or microchip) is the same way you will be those things when you're dead: Utterly unnoticable, aka not at all. Not to mention that your memories will be wiped and that's not even controversial to a panpsychist. The problem is that panpsychists assert consciousness as something independent of memories, which is an indefensible position imo. A memory-less stream of impressions would be equivalent to death. Every moment would be your first, totally disconnected from all else, just to instantly vanish, never to be processed. That's the opposite of consciousness. Some kind of memory feedback/storage/processing is needed. And your ability to generate that lies in the shape of your brain, where it doesn't matter which electrons flow through it - you're not the specific electrons.
I didn't realize it was a fad. I figured it was ancient. Anyway I don't think I am everything, not at the moment anyway, I'm just cautious about shutting out the possibility that something else is someone else.
I'm not sure about your linkage of memory to consciousness either, buy even if we grant it, the world is a very stateful place, there are plenty of systems lying around that might be supporting memory faculties which we fail to recognize as such because we're too different from it. Is the movement of electrical energy in the brain really so different than the ping pongging of neutrons in a stellar core? I mean obviously it is but, when it comes to the ability to store, transmit, and process information, maybe not.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that the sun has thoughts. My point is just that it's knowably unknowable. People are free to chose to believe whatever they want to believe about consciousness and they'll never be proven wrong. If we want to have useful conversations about AI, we need to develop ways of talking about the consequences of our actions which do not require us to first agree on the nature of consciousness.
Even if the entire universe is a pseudo-brain, that doesn't mean you'll get to experience its conscious stream. I'm pretty sure that when a neuron in a brain dies, it's just dead. When a blood cell dies, it doesn't merge its consciousness with yours. When you and I die, we don't become the sun, nor the entire universe. At least I don't see a case for that at all. Imo we also know much more about consciousness than various philosophers are letting on. We know how to alter it (drugs, brain trauma), disable it (narcotics), and when those things happen naturally (senility, coma, sleep,...). We also know that split brain patients can develop two independently addressable selfs. It's just so obviously all about the brain. And the difficulty in defining consciousness is the same problem as defining what a complicated recursive function does, or if you will, defining the shape of a fractal. We just happen to be stable systems where part of our output feeds back into different input points, whether it's via the senses or inside the brain itself during thinking processes, or subconscious mechanisms that e.g. regulate hormones and vital organs. And those feedback loops/vortexes adapted evolutionary to yield results that are reality aligned enough to allow living organisms to navigate the world and recreate. To the question of why something can be experienced at all, I think that's like asking why a camera can take photos, or why chemical reactions exist. I guess some panpsychists would argue that THAT is the consciousness they mean, the sensing per se, the quantum of pain shooting through your nerves, or the signal that enters your brain after a single photon hit the retina just right. But the thing is, all kinds of such reactions also take place while you're in totally unconscious states like deep sleep, even absent-mindedness, and there remain unnoticed. Not to mention the constant biochemical reactions and highly organized changes going on inside the kidneys all the time, which we're never going to consciously tune into.
- If consciousness is as simple as sensing, why don't senses reliably lead to experience?
- If everything is conscious, why is there a disconnect between you and other things?
- If consciousness is fundamental, why can yours be deactivated?
reply