I agree with the premise that having a singular “custom” mental toolset wouldn’t be the way to go. I would personally prefer a general purpose/generic neural interface, more or less like having a sandboxed wireless network link. An individual user would customize their interface and the set of tools that they deploy within that space, just like they do with a computer desktop today.

I also think we are on the same page regarding instant access to information not making one “smarter”, at least not with my definition of intelligence. But I do believe that a person lacking such instant access would be less valuable. Sort of like wanting to be a white collar worker today without having any familiarity with computers.

As I noted in my original posting, I’ve largely skipped the last 20 years of Science Fiction, so I’m somewhat out of the loop on concepts like singularity in terms of computing. Personally, I’m doubtful that mere processing power or MIPS in any way equals intelligence or potential for intelligence. I also think that its somewhat naive to see a trend, such as the annual doubling of processing density that we’ve come to expect, and to project that infinitely into the future.

That said, I *do* believe that direct, personal, transparent, and near-instantaneous access to a data resource like the Internet is around the corner. Processing capacity is not the issue: instead, the whole keyboard, mouse, and monitor interface is where our next great bottleneck comes from. Voice recognition is a bogus solution in the real world- far too slow, and impossible to work with in a cube-farm office. A higher bandwidth and more effective/less intrusive interface is what is needed.

I think the neural/implant “UI” revolution will cause a minor societal inflection point. Today we can keep the disparity between the technology “haves” and “have nots” at a distance. When the difference becomes personalized down to actually altering your “self” to become more hooked in, I think it will challenge a lot of people. Will having such an interface immediately make you “smarter”? No. But not having it will radically curtail your abilities and reduce both your capacity to “produce” and, effectively, your value.

I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, I see the value of experts reviewing and confirming data before it becomes “published”. On the other hand, I can see where the “experts” have an unduly inflated opinion of their infallability due to the perception they have of the value of their education or the “dues” they have paid.

Wikipedia is incredibly responsive to new developments, and I’ve often found better and more thought-provoking entries there than I’ve ever seen in a traditional encyclopedia. But can it be trusted? I don’t think I’d want to rely on any single source of information as authoratative. And I guess that’s where the Internet, properly used, can be valuable.

To put it another way…a “smart”, open minded person with access to the Internet can become better informed and leverage its data to gain new understanding. A “fool” with a closed mind can use the Internet to support their biased and ignorant viewpoint. The trick is knowing, at a given point in time, which one you are

Having instant access to google all the time doesn’t change all that much except to depress the value of carrying around lots of trivia and devalue mindless regurgitation of news and information sources- originality will be a premium when when anything you say could be put into google to show that someone already said it, and someone else has already discredited it (obviously it’s already like that in the online world, conversations in the real world are next). The best things to have in your head are good searching methods for one, and complex processes/methods/models relevant to your work and life for two (search methods also falling into that category of course). The things that are hardest to understand and learn and most useful to you are your most prized mental possessions.

All harmless fun and sillyness, and corrected by Google as soon as they found out about it with a change to their search algorithms. But… and here’s the kicker, what happens when a significant portion of society uses google and other online sources as suplamental memory and intelligence? Not as a handy reference but through habit and seamless intefaces as part of what they KNOW? Then someone with the ability to spoof those online sources, even for a little while, can in effect alter teh memories and knowledge of society.

You think urban myths are hard to kill now, imagine when people have “proof”.

People have always used propoganda, advertising, control of schools and libraries to try and re-write history. To mold the way people think for their own ends. And it works. But it is a slow and cumbersome process and doesn’t allow fine detailed control. We have ( or most of us should, ) a certain skepticism and distrust of media and other outside sources. We take some convincing befoe we accept as fact what they tell us…or at least all of what they tell us. But we don’t apply the same rigorous filter to our inside thoughts. But if people become so intergrated into the online that they start to rely on it as if it were their own memory and knowlege, then anyone that can change that has in effect mastered thought control.