Oh ye of little faith about how fast technology is about to change. (I think it’s already pretty easy to do almost-subvocalized messages. I guess this conversation is sort of predicated on it being pre-uploads and maybe pre-ubiquitous neuralink-ish things)
Subvocal mikes have been theoretically possible (and even demo’d) for decades, and highly desired and not yet actually feasible for public consumer use, which to me is strong evidence that it’s a Hard Problem. Neurallink or less-invasive brain interfaces even more so.
There’s a lot of AI and tech bets I won’t take—pure software can change REALLY fast. However, I’d be interested to operationalize this disagreement about hardware/wetware interfaces and timelines. I’d probably lay 3:1 against either voice-interface-usable-on-a-crowded-train or non-touch input and non-visual output via a brain link becoming common (say, 1% of smartphone users) by end of 2027, or 1:1 against for end of 2029.
Of the two, I give most weight to my losing this bet via subvocal interfaces that LLMs can be trained to interpret, with only a little bit of training/effort on the part of the user. That’ll be cool, but it’s still very physical and I predict won’t quickly work.
Part of the generator was “I’ve seen a demo of apple airpods basically working for this right now” (it’s not, like, 100% silent, you have to speak at a whisper, but, it seemed fine for a room with some background noise)
I’d probably lay 3:1 against either voice-interface-usable-on-a-crowded-train or non-touch input and non-visual output via a brain link becoming common (say, 1% of smartphone users) by end of 2027, or 1:1 against for end of 2029.
These do not seem like conservative estimates. For a technology like this I think a spread to almost everyone (with a smartphone) is pretty likely given a spread to 1% of users. At least, from a technological perspective (which seems to be what your comment is arguing from), spreading to 1% of users seems like the real hard part here.
They’re not intended to be conservative, they’re an attempt to operationalize my current beliefs. Offering 3:1 means I give a very significant probability (up to 25%) to the other side. That’s pretty huge for such a large change in software-interaction modality.
Agreed that being usable enough that 1% of users prefer it for at least some of their daily use is the hard part. Once it’s well-known and good enough for the early adopters, then making it the standard/default is just a matter of time—the technology can be predicted to win when it gets there.
I don’t honestly know how much Raemon’s (or your) beliefs differ from mine, in terms of timeline and likelihood. I didn’t intend to fully contradict anything he said, just to acknowledge that I think the most likely major change is still pretty iffy.
Subvocal mikes have been theoretically possible (and even demo’d) for decades, and highly desired and not yet actually feasible for public consumer use, which to me is strong evidence that it’s a Hard Problem. Neurallink or less-invasive brain interfaces even more so.
There’s a lot of AI and tech bets I won’t take—pure software can change REALLY fast. However, I’d be interested to operationalize this disagreement about hardware/wetware interfaces and timelines. I’d probably lay 3:1 against either voice-interface-usable-on-a-crowded-train or non-touch input and non-visual output via a brain link becoming common (say, 1% of smartphone users) by end of 2027, or 1:1 against for end of 2029.
Of the two, I give most weight to my losing this bet via subvocal interfaces that LLMs can be trained to interpret, with only a little bit of training/effort on the part of the user. That’ll be cool, but it’s still very physical and I predict won’t quickly work.
Part of the generator was “I’ve seen a demo of apple airpods basically working for this right now” (it’s not, like, 100% silent, you have to speak at a whisper, but, it seemed fine for a room with some background noise)
These do not seem like conservative estimates. For a technology like this I think a spread to almost everyone (with a smartphone) is pretty likely given a spread to 1% of users. At least, from a technological perspective (which seems to be what your comment is arguing from), spreading to 1% of users seems like the real hard part here.
They’re not intended to be conservative, they’re an attempt to operationalize my current beliefs. Offering 3:1 means I give a very significant probability (up to 25%) to the other side. That’s pretty huge for such a large change in software-interaction modality.
Agreed that being usable enough that 1% of users prefer it for at least some of their daily use is the hard part. Once it’s well-known and good enough for the early adopters, then making it the standard/default is just a matter of time—the technology can be predicted to win when it gets there.
I don’t honestly know how much Raemon’s (or your) beliefs differ from mine, in terms of timeline and likelihood. I didn’t intend to fully contradict anything he said, just to acknowledge that I think the most likely major change is still pretty iffy.
Ok, I guess I got confused by your calling it a “Hard Problem”.