@andybaio Indeed. I've been assuming it's a reference to the movie of that name starring Bradley Cooper, based on a book by Alan Glynn, that's about artificially increased mental capacity as a superpower.
@disquiet Yeah, they mention that as a parenthetical in the second paragraph. "Oh, and in case you’re wondering: yes, it’s very much a reference to the movie."
@andybaio Endgame of this is company could be to record all inputs and outputs of office workers and then train an AI agent that does their job... then sell the agent to the employer getting them fired. Good luck to anyone who actually buys this thing or works for a company that forces them to wear it.
@andybaio Gotta wonder how this works in multi-person consent states? Would a person recorded without their consent be able to take action against Limitless? Betting the user agreement indemnifies Limitless from the purchaser, but not sure how that would work for the person recorded.
@karabaic Conceivably yes, the user could be liable for recording someone without consent in a multi-person consent state. But Limitless would likely be no more liable than Sony would be for making a tape recorder used to record someone without their consent in the same situation.
@andybaio “it’ll be about AI agents that actually do stuff on your behalf, so Limitless can know everything about you and do everything for you and everything will be amazing.”
@andybaio This is like the google glass nightmare all over. I hope someone designs something that will screw up recording. This is invasive at the very least.
We should really be thinking more about why the people with all the money are spending all of our resources to make the world shittier instead of better, and why we're allowing them to.
Add comment