What a post! You’ve done a huge amount of thinking about it.
Would it be possible for you to give in a few sentences, I suppose you are busy, the evolution of your thoughts on this subject, do the advances allow to confirm the fears put forward 2 years ago already, Or did they encounter difficulties in capturing thoughts?
I can say, that to this day, they cannot know our thoughts before us. They also cannot have any control over our brain (mental, psychology...). There is a huge difference between capturing thoughts and controlling, manipulating...these latter, or ordering various executions. So there is no fear of that, but it’s still an invasion of privacy.
People having following this intrusion of psychoses or others, are not manipulated in any way, they are voluntary in acceptance, by listening, the will to act... This can indeed lead to paranoia etc.
I guess that doesn’t sound credible, and I understand that, but I say it for the purposes of studies, experiments, etc. It’s the only way to verify.
The challenge with assessment for progress into the erosion of privacy is that we have no method to really measure it.
For example, no one knew how much Twitter was manipulating public discourse until the Twitter Files were released. I recently saw someone post "A rise in AI-generated propaganda failed to materialize."
However, how would we know? If the propaganda is effective, and it is convincingly passing as human, then AI-generated propaganda may very well be greater today than it was a year ago.
My current perspective is that the risks to our privacy are still under threat, but the capability of AI to do all the things they were projecting 2 years ago is not going to materialize with the technology we have. That being specifically AGI.
Nonetheless, they certainly have the ability to know vast amounts about us by proxy of the information we leave all over the web and social media. Current AI is good enough to likely build very good profiles of people. It can't know your thoughts in the most literal sense, but they can statistically place people in categories by their beliefs, ideology, politics etc.
Thank you for Your answer which I call realistic, the fact of not knowing everything about the extent of the deception...to consider all possibilities, or almost.
There is a lack of precision regarding the words chosen for the context in which it is written. Such as the deciphering of thought (reflexive), which differs from memory thinking, visual, when they mention that language is not necessary, whether by partial or total incapacity. And this statement "Our thoughts transcend language." shared by many see most neurologists (it is said), or there are also amalgams in publications.
I wonder if this is not part of a tacit promotion of AI, and a subtle way to make believe that reflexive thinking is not paramount (which would be good for globalists). Even if one can live with an aphasia because of a disability, it remains that no one can precisely quantify the remaining capacity involved in the quality of life of such a person.
This is a blatant deception, which I suppose is voluntary, because how could high-level scientists miss that. It is therefore absolutely necessary to clearly specify the advanced real and not the publication of data with words having several meanings depending on the context, without adding additional details to describe in detail the facts and results obtained.
May I ask you one more question about this statement: "Our thoughts transcend language."
Based on your experiences, research or otherwise, does this seem (or is) possible? I am talking about reflexive thinking with its reasoning...deep. It is always good to compare your own observations with those of others, and more specifically people like you, or the answers can allow for deepening, if necessary.
We can reason without language, but language provides anchors for our thoughts that helps us to not lose track of our progress. We can reuse concepts we or others have thought about more easily as they have names for reference.
Also, many concepts do have visual representations and we can reason through some ideas in a visual manner.
But in a sense, language gives us navigation markers that aid us. We could find our way through a forest without markers, but if we add markers along the way, we become more efficient at navigating and can go further each time.
I share "...reason through certain ideas in a visual way."
To move etc. in the world, this in connection with memory, visual, auditory etc.
As for reasoning, it is not possible according to my experiences, research and reflections on this subject; perhaps I lack the process that could confirm it.
Whether a researcher, neurologist or other, without having had any brain injury can say so, because let’s not forget that the publications have mostly concerned studies following serious trauma (which I personally experienced). In this case, they must be able to detail the process to be followed. It is not enough to rely on the findings of injured persons, to affirm this (because possible for all).
Could you explain me this process, how you personally get there, I can’t (or not yet). As far as I am concerned, and for the moment, these are errors of reasoning (researchers...) due to the multiple possibilities of definitions given for words: thinking, reasoning...
I would be very grateful, it is a subject of reflection that is close to my heart, the disagreements concern, according to my readings, mainly on the inaccuracies (words) and misunderstandings of the differences between pure reasoning and access to data (memory, visual...).
Thank you in advance, it is a real pleasure to read topics of such quality.
What a post! You’ve done a huge amount of thinking about it.
Would it be possible for you to give in a few sentences, I suppose you are busy, the evolution of your thoughts on this subject, do the advances allow to confirm the fears put forward 2 years ago already, Or did they encounter difficulties in capturing thoughts?
I can say, that to this day, they cannot know our thoughts before us. They also cannot have any control over our brain (mental, psychology...). There is a huge difference between capturing thoughts and controlling, manipulating...these latter, or ordering various executions. So there is no fear of that, but it’s still an invasion of privacy.
People having following this intrusion of psychoses or others, are not manipulated in any way, they are voluntary in acceptance, by listening, the will to act... This can indeed lead to paranoia etc.
I guess that doesn’t sound credible, and I understand that, but I say it for the purposes of studies, experiments, etc. It’s the only way to verify.
The challenge with assessment for progress into the erosion of privacy is that we have no method to really measure it.
For example, no one knew how much Twitter was manipulating public discourse until the Twitter Files were released. I recently saw someone post "A rise in AI-generated propaganda failed to materialize."
However, how would we know? If the propaganda is effective, and it is convincingly passing as human, then AI-generated propaganda may very well be greater today than it was a year ago.
My current perspective is that the risks to our privacy are still under threat, but the capability of AI to do all the things they were projecting 2 years ago is not going to materialize with the technology we have. That being specifically AGI.
Nonetheless, they certainly have the ability to know vast amounts about us by proxy of the information we leave all over the web and social media. Current AI is good enough to likely build very good profiles of people. It can't know your thoughts in the most literal sense, but they can statistically place people in categories by their beliefs, ideology, politics etc.
They can use this to then manipulate the public and someone recently released such an experiment that was done on Reddit. https://x.com/reddit_lies/status/1916916134630117814
Which essentially confirms this is likely going on without our knowledge. We will just never know until someone reveals it.
Thank you for Your answer which I call realistic, the fact of not knowing everything about the extent of the deception...to consider all possibilities, or almost.
I fully share this concern and the serious consequences it entails. It’s been a long time since I thought about the subject, that I dissected articles like this: (https://news.utexas.edu/2025/02/06/improved-brain-decoder-holds-promise-for-communication-in-people-with-aphasia/) which follows the precedent you had linked in this post.
There is a lack of precision regarding the words chosen for the context in which it is written. Such as the deciphering of thought (reflexive), which differs from memory thinking, visual, when they mention that language is not necessary, whether by partial or total incapacity. And this statement "Our thoughts transcend language." shared by many see most neurologists (it is said), or there are also amalgams in publications.
I wonder if this is not part of a tacit promotion of AI, and a subtle way to make believe that reflexive thinking is not paramount (which would be good for globalists). Even if one can live with an aphasia because of a disability, it remains that no one can precisely quantify the remaining capacity involved in the quality of life of such a person.
This is a blatant deception, which I suppose is voluntary, because how could high-level scientists miss that. It is therefore absolutely necessary to clearly specify the advanced real and not the publication of data with words having several meanings depending on the context, without adding additional details to describe in detail the facts and results obtained.
May I ask you one more question about this statement: "Our thoughts transcend language."
Based on your experiences, research or otherwise, does this seem (or is) possible? I am talking about reflexive thinking with its reasoning...deep. It is always good to compare your own observations with those of others, and more specifically people like you, or the answers can allow for deepening, if necessary.
We can reason without language, but language provides anchors for our thoughts that helps us to not lose track of our progress. We can reuse concepts we or others have thought about more easily as they have names for reference.
Also, many concepts do have visual representations and we can reason through some ideas in a visual manner.
But in a sense, language gives us navigation markers that aid us. We could find our way through a forest without markers, but if we add markers along the way, we become more efficient at navigating and can go further each time.
Thank you for your response.
I share "...reason through certain ideas in a visual way."
To move etc. in the world, this in connection with memory, visual, auditory etc.
As for reasoning, it is not possible according to my experiences, research and reflections on this subject; perhaps I lack the process that could confirm it.
Whether a researcher, neurologist or other, without having had any brain injury can say so, because let’s not forget that the publications have mostly concerned studies following serious trauma (which I personally experienced). In this case, they must be able to detail the process to be followed. It is not enough to rely on the findings of injured persons, to affirm this (because possible for all).
Could you explain me this process, how you personally get there, I can’t (or not yet). As far as I am concerned, and for the moment, these are errors of reasoning (researchers...) due to the multiple possibilities of definitions given for words: thinking, reasoning...
I would be very grateful, it is a subject of reflection that is close to my heart, the disagreements concern, according to my readings, mainly on the inaccuracies (words) and misunderstandings of the differences between pure reasoning and access to data (memory, visual...).
Thank you in advance, it is a real pleasure to read topics of such quality.