The privacy aspect of his talk is interesting but I do not like the analogy of "telepathy" as it is used. I would rather he called it <i>"highly curated telepathy"</i>. Morphic resonance <i>or real telepathy and a fringe science</i> would only limit who's brainwaves your brain can synchronize to and would not limit what one could send or receive.<p><i>Internet connected telepathy</i> on the other hand would be highly curated, controlled, manipulated by even more advanced algorithms than the hot mess our social media platforms are in today. I think that is a bigger issue than privacy given that people can not be forced to participate in the highly connected society despite what some may think. Future legal regulations will be of no help as we have seen by all the social media platforms happily ignoring them and accepting fines as the cost of doing business.<p>Perhaps experience has made me overly pessimistic. I propose an idea for his next related video:<p><i>2052: Reparations to the victims of the 2030 behavioral control projects. How society rebuilds and and regains their freedom.</i> Some of the victims in this case may not have even been connected to the <i>telepathy</i> network. They may have been in close proximity to connected victims receiving second-hand manipulation.
This tech will happen the trick is finding ways of preserving privacy without degrading user experience too much.<p>Small open LLMs can enable a kind of differential privacy prompt rewrite system.