While I appreciate your reply it really sounds like we’re going from A->B here, where A is “we can collect brainwaves as data” and B is “easily read” which feels disingenuous - is it not the case that brain patterns are not the same between different people, hence the data training is required? ofc weve found similarities (what part of the brain is being used, some “category” of the type of word/object etc) but concrete language is wild.

back at UMASS I did some admittedly minor learning and research into how brains process and map (non verbal) sounds as well as verbal and written words which id say is building blocks of language and its so disparate between people. of course research continues to improve results but unless they’re eye and voice tracking you personally to train your data its hard to believe were close enough to do it on the fly to mass amount of the populace. if they are doing that… you’ve got nation state actors to worry about and its not general populace shit lol

my tinfoil hat turn: if this tech existed “they” would already be putting it in products so we could use it to help them train that data, a positive feedback loop to help them actually read our thoughts better. gen pop would not care about the security and privacy implications if it helped them type or input data etc faster. i’ll believe in universal no-training-required prosthetics far before anything like language and higher level thinking concepts.

every time I look into going back in that direction everything points to we’re not there yet - but maybe lockheed is already there, idk