Loading
What changed between revision 2 and revision 3, compared over the article's markdown source with its frontmatter — so a change to status, evidence or reversibility shows up as the edit it is.
Older · revision 2
Import
Re-import of content/human-ai-merger.md — the file changed after the initial import. Not an edit.
12.8 kB
Revision 2
Revision 3
lines 7–15 → 7–146 unchanged lines not shown
categories: ["foundations", "cybernetics", "minds"]categories: ["foundations", "cybernetics", "minds"]tags: ["artificial intelligence", "brain-computer interface", "bandwidth", "identity", "cognition", "extended mind"]tags: ["artificial intelligence", "brain-computer interface", "bandwidth", "identity", "cognition", "extended mind"]summary: "The proposal that humans and artificial intelligence will form a single cognitive system rather than remaining separate agents that merely use one another."summary: "The proposal that humans and artificial intelligence will form a single cognitive system rather than remaining separate agents that merely use one another."updated: "2026-10-29"updated: "2026-10-30"humanEvidence: "No merged system exists at any scale; the strongest human results are intracortical implants in small numbers of people with paralysis, decoding attempted speech or handwriting at tens of words per minute."humanEvidence: "No merged system exists at any scale; the strongest human results are intracortical implants in small numbers of people with paralysis, decoding attempted speech or handwriting at tens of words per minute."issues: ["The reading, typing and speech rate figures in the bandwidth section carry no source."]------ ```infobox```infoboxlines 57–65 → 56–6441 unchanged lines not shown
## The bandwidth argument## The bandwidth argument The most-cited technical motivation for invasive interfaces is asymmetry. Human input bandwidth is reasonable, with reading at roughly 200 to 300 words per minute, while output is slow, at perhaps 40 words per minute by keyboard and 150 by speech. On this argument, human thought is fast but the channel to the outside is narrow, and widening it with a direct cortical connection would let people keep pace with machine reasoning. Elon Musk has made this the public rationale for [[neuralink]], framing a high-bandwidth interface as the alternative to obsolescence.The most-cited technical motivation for invasive interfaces is asymmetry. Human input looks reasonably fast: a meta-analysis of 190 studies puts average adult silent reading in English at 238 words per minute for non-fiction and 260 for fiction.[^brysbaert2019] Output looks slow by comparison. Some 168,000 volunteers on an online typing test averaged about 52 words per minute,[^dhakal2018] and natural conversation runs at about 160.[^willett2023] On this argument, human thought is fast but the channel to the outside is narrow, and widening it with a direct cortical connection would let people keep pace with machine reasoning. Elon Musk has made this the public rationale for [[neuralink]]. At a July 2019 company presentation in San Francisco he said that "even under a benign AI, we will be left behind", and that a high-bandwidth interface would give people "the option to go along for the ride".[^farrell2019] He restated the claim as a near-term forecast in October 2026, writing that the output bandwidth of Telepathy, which he called Neuralink's first product, "will vastly exceed the fastest human speech or typing in a few years".[^musk2026] The argument has a serious empirical problem. Measurements of human behavioural throughput across a wide range of tasks, including typing, speech, sight-reading and competitive puzzle solving, converge on something close to ten bits per second, orders of magnitude below the raw information rate of the sensory periphery.[^zheng2025] If the slow step is central rather than peripheral, a wider output channel does not help, because there is nothing faster upstream waiting to use it. The nervous system's apparent bottleneck is serial attention, not the width of the mouth or hands.The argument has a serious empirical problem. Measurements of human behavioural throughput across a wide range of tasks, including typing, speech, reading and blindfolded speed-cubing, fall between roughly 5 and 50 bits per second, which Jieyu Zheng and Markus Meister summarise as about ten, orders of magnitude below the raw information rate of the sensory periphery.[^zheng2025] If the slow step is central rather than peripheral, a wider output channel does not help, because there is nothing faster upstream waiting to use it. On their account, the nervous system's bottleneck is serial attention, not the width of the mouth or hands. > [!debate] Is bandwidth the bottleneck?> [!debate] Is bandwidth the bottleneck?> Proponents treat the interface as the limiting factor and the brain as an underused source. The competing view holds that conscious cognition is intrinsically low-rate, in which case a thousand-channel implant would deliver the same ten bits per second with more surgery. No experiment has yet distinguished these, because no interface has come close to saturating even the narrow channel.> Proponents treat the interface as the limiting factor and the brain as an underused source. The competing view holds that conscious cognition is intrinsically low-rate, in which case a thousand-channel implant would deliver the same ten bits per second with more surgery. No experiment has yet distinguished these, because no interface has come close to saturating even the narrow channel.lines 112–119 → 111–12246 unchanged lines not shown
[^licklider1960]: `paper` Licklider, J. C. R. "Man-Computer Symbiosis." *IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics*, 1960.[^licklider1960]: `paper` Licklider, J. C. R. "Man-Computer Symbiosis." *IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics*, 1960.[^clynes1960]: `paper` Clynes, M. E. and Kline, N. S. "Cyborgs and Space." *Astronautics*, 1960.[^clynes1960]: `paper` Clynes, M. E. and Kline, N. S. "Cyborgs and Space." *Astronautics*, 1960.[^zheng2025]: `paper` Zheng, J. and Meister, M. "The Unbearable Slowness of Being: Why Do We Live at 10 Bits/s?" *Neuron*, 2025. {The ten-bit figure is an estimate aggregated across behavioural tasks, not a measurement of any neural channel.}[^zheng2025]: `paper` Zheng, J. and Meister, M. "The Unbearable Slowness of Being: Why Do We Live at 10 Bits/s?" *Neuron*, 2025. {The ten-bit figure is an estimate aggregated across behavioural tasks, not a measurement of any neural channel.}[^willett2023]: `paper` Willett, F. R. et al. "A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis." *Nature*, 2023. {A single participant with ALS and implanted electrode arrays; the rate is for attempted speech decoded from motor cortex, not for a healthy user.}[^willett2023]: `paper` Willett, F. R. et al. "A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis." *Nature*, 2023. {One participant with ALS; its rate is for attempted speech decoded from motor cortex, and its 160 words per minute figure for conversation is quoted from earlier literature.}[^clark1998]: `paper` Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. "The Extended Mind." *Analysis*, 1998.[^clark1998]: `paper` Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. "The Extended Mind." *Analysis*, 1998.[^sparrow2011]: `paper` Sparrow, B., Liu, J. and Wegner, D. M. "Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips." *Science*, 2011.[^sparrow2011]: `paper` Sparrow, B., Liu, J. and Wegner, D. M. "Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips." *Science*, 2011.[^vaccaro2024]: `paper` Vaccaro, M., Almaatouq, A. and Malone, T. "When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis." *Nature Human Behaviour*, 2024. {Pools experiments across very different tasks; the decision-versus-creation contrast is a subgroup finding within that pooled set.}[^vaccaro2024]: `paper` Vaccaro, M., Almaatouq, A. and Malone, T. "When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis." *Nature Human Behaviour*, 2024. {Pools experiments across very different tasks; the decision-versus-creation contrast is a subgroup finding within that pooled set.}[^brysbaert2019]: `paper` Brysbaert, M. "How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate." *Journal of Memory and Language* 109:104047, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047 {Finds rates lower than the figures often cited; most adults fall between 175 and 300 words per minute for non-fiction.}[^dhakal2018]: `paper` Dhakal, V., Feit, A. M., Kristensson, P. O. and Oulasvirta, A. "Observations on Typing from 136 Million Keystrokes." *Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174220 {Self-selected visitors to a free typing-test website; the mean was 51.56 words per minute with a standard deviation of 20.2.}[^farrell2019]: `news` Farrell, J. "Elon Musk says Neuralink is almost ready to start reading human minds." SiliconANGLE, 17 July 2019. https://siliconangle.com/2019/07/17/elon-musk-says-neuralink-almost-ready-start-reading-human-minds/[^musk2026]: `statement` Musk, E. Post on X, 30 October 2026. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2116018780111597911 removed, struck through added, underlinedLine numbers count the serialised markdown of each revision, frontmatter included.
114 lines are the same in both revisions, and 93 of them are not shown. Neither revision here is necessarily the current article — read Human–AI merger for the text this wiki stands behind today.