Is speedcubing ultimately doomed?

[Mike Hughey]

When I first thought of posting this, I was going to title it "Is blindfolded solving ultimately doomed". But after thinking about it for a while, I realized it really applies to all speedsolving, not just blindsolving. It's just that it may have a bigger impact more quickly on blindsolving.

What am I talking about? I'm thinking about computer brain implants. For those of you saying "yeah, but they're a long way away", perhaps you're right, but it seems to me like it's closer than we might think. People are already experimenting with them, and even if they don't work very well yet, there will always be some crazy person who will be willing to try them out. For blindsolving in particular, the interface could be terribly crude and rudimentary and yet still have a huge impact. Imagine you have an interface that only works so well as to allow you to think individual letters or symbols and allow them to be "typed" in mentally. Then some sort of additional interface that will read that back to you so you can "hear" it. The interface could be bad enough that it would have almost no practical value in the real world, and yet it would give you incredible memorization/recall ability in BLD. A 5x5x5 would be no harder than a 3x3x3, other than the larger number of pieces to be solved and the slightly more difficult-to-execute algs. It would seem to me that competitive blindsolving would very quickly die, unless there were some way to guarantee no one is using such an implant.

Of course, assuming implants actually get as decent as people hope for - so it's like you have a full computer interfaced to your brain, and works almost like Google Glass, but without any visible hardware - it would actually kill off all speedcubing. You'd be able to have your implant solve the best possible fingertricked solution during inspection, and it could simply display the moves to you, shown as easy-to-execute triggers. (Incidentally, you should remember this if you ever find yourself racing against someone wearing Google Glass. ) Fewest moves would certainly be dead. But this would require an actual decent interface, which I suspect will actually take a while to happen.

Still, the thought that even the most basic implants would probably kill competitive blindfolded solving is a little disappointing to me.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

 

[Username]

Haven't even thought about this...

 

[Bizarro]

Interesting. It'd be like steroids for cubing. The only remaining competitive aspect that would remain is how fast one could execute algs. So me, even with a computer implant, would still be slow.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

Even if this happened I don't think I'd care. Using brain implants is boring and tedious, I'd rather push myself for the sake of challenging myself. I enjoy having my effort pay off by getting faster, and learning new things, and the best part of competitions is meeting cool people. For the competition aspect of competitions, it should always be about trying to perform well under pressure. I would guess that there are enough people who share this view to keep speedcubing alive, and I would be disappointed to be proven wrong on this point.

 

[Forte]

I feel like if this works, it could kill off many competitive mental sports, some of which have a community much bigger than ours (like chess maybe?). I'm guessing that they'll try really hard to come up with a solution lol

 

[BaMiao]

I feel like if this works, it could kill off many competitive mental sports, some of which have a community much bigger than ours (like chess maybe?). I'm guessing that they'll try really hard to come up with a solution lol

Yes, these were my thoughts exactly. A world with computer brain implants will be a very different world, indeed. This issue will be debated in all sectors of society.

 

[Mike Hughey]

what experiments?

You can google "computer brain implants" to find some articles. Things so far wouldn't directly work for this (they're mainly being researched to help people with disabilities), but it's not hard to see how easily they could be adapted to do something like this if you REALLY wanted to. I doubt it will happen in the next few years, but in the next ten, who knows what could happen?

It is obvious that memory sports would die really quickly too. And other mental sports would probably soon follow.

At first I even wondered if it would be possible to resist using this capability for home blindsolving, since if it became good, you'd get so used to using it that it would be very difficult to resist using it while blindsolving. But then I realized that surely we'll be smart enough to have an on/off switch for your internal computer, so hopefully you could just shut it off when you want to do blindsolving (at home, at least). I don't know that that helps in competition, though, unless we have a way of detecting implanted computers that are active, or have a way to disable them while you're in the room.

 

[SirWaffle]

Yes, speedcubing is doomed in the end but I say we enjoy it while it lasts

 

[Username]

Even if this happened I don't think I'd care. Using brain implants is boring and tedious, I'd rather push myself for the sake of challenging myself. I enjoy having my effort pay off by getting faster, and learning new things, and the best part of competitions is meeting cool people. For the competition aspect of competitions, it should always be about trying to perform well under pressure. I would guess that there are enough people who share this view to keep speedcubing alive, and I would be disappointed to be proven wrong on this point.

This is exactly what I'm thinking

 

[waffle=ijm]

oh man, we're going deus ex machina all up in here.
personally, I think there will be an eventual decline in cubing in general. even without these internal computers and such, but they'll only speed up the process.

In my personal opinion, on the subject, as the internal computer technology advances, so will the technology to "disable" them. I don't think that it would be fair to a school system if one of their students "cheated" their way through school. I'm sure they'll come up with something.

 

[sneaklyfox]

Worry about this when it happens.

 

[Unparalleled]

Haha I say that if this happens, cubing is the least of our worries. With all the implications to other things like schooling, standardized testing, politics, sports, and even relationships- some solution is bound to be found. And even if it doesn't, cubing will still be a competition of finger speed and dexterity. (There's a lot of sports almost entirely strength and speed..)

Off topic but interesting: if we all have computers in our brains.. what happens if we get a virus? Would the computer hackers of today be the brain hackers of tomorrow?

Anyway, let's just say cubing is not top of the list of things to worry about here!

 

[DistinctThought]

The technological imperative often evolves the human race; it also seems to devolve the state of being human.

Like you said, a simple interface could easily allow most anyone to do a blind solve without much practice. But it seems to me that the interpretation of the interface would still take time. "Speed" is at the heart of "speedcubing," and most cubers achieve speed by thinking ahead while performing solves. While perhaps to a lesser extent, this definitely applies to blind solves as well. Consciously having to interpret some kind of code from a brain implant would take copious time after every algorithm. A brain implant that could specify notation or even algorithms (or one that could cause muscle reflexes to fire) would definitely allow for faster solves, but I think using an interface like you suggested might actually slow people down. Nonetheless, blind solving would no longer be an impressive skill.

All of this is kind of far-fetched--not scientifically, but politically and economically. The political front would paralyze the progression of brain implants into the mass market. Look at what happened to nano-technology. First proposed publicly in 1996, nano-technology has been at the heart of ethical debate ever since. Few now deny its potential as a groundbreaking medical asset, but many fear how its implementation might affect society in much the same way as brain implants might affect speedcubing. The government is forced to regulate the R&D and implementation of nano-technology to a gross extent, limiting its use to basic medical functions. At the heart of the political debate is the schism between "remediation and augmentation." That is, something like nano-technology (or brain implants) should only be used for the remediation of medical defects, and never for the unnatural augmentation of a normal human being. But where do you draw the line between "defected" and "normal?" If everyone started using brain implants, wouldn't it become a standard? Would au naturel cubers be "defected?" These questions are why the government tends to regulate the public in a way that reflects Leon Kass's "Wisdom of Repugnance." (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0006.html) The essay, originally written in response to the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep, basically states the following: If something feels morally wrong or "repugnant," don't do it. Using technology to change the human state is repugnant to many people, including those in government, and thus the technological imperative is often curtailed by governmental limitations on technology that could be used as human augmentation.

The government also has to consider the relative equality of her people. Brain implants would be expensive. At first, only the upper class would be able to afford them, and then there would be a clear social hierarchy artificially formed through technology. If the government tried to limit this by creating a price cap, it would cease to be profitable for capitalist companies to install brain implants; thus there would still be a limited supply, and the end result would be the same. Even if most people could afford implants, the question of "normal" versus "defected" arises again. Would the minority, who were not implanted, be "defected?" Would the government be obligated to spend huge amounts of corporate dollars on providing brain implants for those without? Would insurance companies be obligated to cover the costs of brain implants?

Questions like these are why, at least in the United States, it will take a long time for brain implants to have an effect anywhere but the medical field. Even there, there will likely be no real interface except timed relays of electrical signals that will sustain life.

Basically, I think and hope we're safe for a couple of decades. I don't at all like to think about the world you fear. A world without human flare in speedcubing would be a dull world indeed.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I would like to clarify that I don't necessarily "worry about" or "fear" this development. It's change; it's not necessarily good or bad - it all depends on what we do with it. It might end speedcubing as a competitive sport (probably blindsolving first), but there are certainly other things that could take its place. I'm just fascinated by the possibility.

DistinctThought, you have some interesting points, but I wonder about the possibility that this could all be built before the government could even intervene. It seems like a smart tech company might be able to build something that's fully functional before they ever tell anyone about it. Once it's built and functional, I suspect that in the United States there would be quite an outcry if the government tried to outlaw it - it would seem too heavy-handed, and it really doesn't have quite the same ethical questions that cloning has. It's really barely different from Google Glass, and while Google Glass is being outlawed in certain locations and situations, it's not being stopped entirely.

As for blindsolving, perhaps you don't understand my description of how it would work. I'm hoping the return interface from the computer would allow "audio" to be fed to me, much like a cochlear implant does now. (I don't know if that's possible, but it seems feasible.) I'm not a bad blindsolver (not world-class, but not bad - I'm capable of a sub-minute lucky solve). If I could mentally "record" letter pairs one per second as I identify them in the memorization phase, and then have them played back in "audio" at a predetermined speed (say, one pair every 3 seconds), with a little practice I could memorize in about 10 seconds and solve in about 30 seconds, with perfect accuracy other than silly execution mistakes. I could easily cut about 30 to 40 seconds off my typical time. I still wouldn't be world-class - I'd probably still average more like 45 seconds - but that's just because I'm slow in general; someone faster could certainly make this work at WR speeds.

 

[AvGalen]

...someone faster could certainly make this work at WR speeds.

I am not so sure about that. Please explain how this would make Feliks/Mats do a sub 5. Of course the AVERAGE person would get a lot faster with enough practice but the top is already superhuman

Also, we have great calculators, but in Dubai I just met a group of little kids that were deeply into Abacus and technology didn't seem to have influenced their sport a lot.
Another example: Tour de France is still popular and tiring etc...although we have motorbikes.
Sports have to follow rules and if technology makes those rules old-fashioned most people will just enjoy the sport with the old-fashioned rules anyway

 

[Ollie]

I would like to clarify that I don't necessarily "worry about" or "fear" this development. It's change; it's not necessarily good or bad - it all depends on what we do with it. It might end speedcubing as a competitive sport (probably blindsolving first), but there are certainly other things that could take its place. I'm just fascinated by the possibility.

DistinctThought, you have some interesting points, but I wonder about the possibility that this could all be built before the government could even intervene. It seems like a smart tech company might be able to build something that's fully functional before they ever tell anyone about it. Once it's built and functional, I suspect that in the United States there would be quite an outcry if the government tried to outlaw it - it would seem too heavy-handed, and it really doesn't have quite the same ethical questions that cloning has. It's really barely different from Google Glass, and while Google Glass is being outlawed in certain locations and situations, it's not being stopped entirely.

As for blindsolving, perhaps you don't understand my description of how it would work. I'm hoping the return interface from the computer would allow "audio" to be fed to me, much like a cochlear implant does now. (I don't know if that's possible, but it seems feasible.) I'm not a bad blindsolver (not world-class, but not bad - I'm capable of a sub-minute lucky solve). If I could mentally "record" letter pairs one per second as I identify them in the memorization phase, and then have them played back in "audio" at a predetermined speed (say, one pair every 3 seconds), with a little practice I could memorize in about 10 seconds and solve in about 30 seconds, with perfect accuracy other than silly execution mistakes. I could easily cut about 30 to 40 seconds off my typical time. I still wouldn't be world-class - I'd probably still average more like 45 seconds - but that's just because I'm slow in general; someone faster could certainly make this work at WR speeds.

The moral dilemma is when people can or can't use the implant. For instance, why bother testing students if they can all recall facts and figures effortlessly through technology? (which I guess is the main point - if everyone has this technology, then as a race, we have advanced, and concepts such as testing become redundant.)

I'm extremely interested in whether technology + pre-existing brain power makes a difference. If everyone eventually gets this technology 'advantage' then it wouldn't matter, as long as brain power triumphs, or at the very least makes a significant contribution to overall performance. Obviously it would depend on how advanced the technology is, but it would still require the person to learn the basic concepts of speedcubing methods or BLD, learn to apply them, then learn to execute quickly.

But I suppose another point is, if no-one has realised this already, is that if a chip could be built to execute as fast as the muscles could take without fatiguing, as well as to work out the optimal solution, then holy ship. Goodbye speedcubing.

This is really interesting as a Neuroscience student. It's given me some wicked ideas. Thank YOU for bringing this up

 

[cmhardw]

This makes me think about how in many movies extraterrestrials have telepathic abilities. Maybe their telepathy is just wireless communication via brain implants in both parties. Cool stuff, sort of like how the science fiction could become reality.

 

[antoineccantin]

Sorry if this sounds stupid or irrelevant, but if everyone uses brain implants in the future, then the actual brain will work less and less, and eventually do almost nothing on it's own, you could easily disable entirely a Nation or region or whatever by means of some kind of EMP?

 

[DuffyEdge]

This stuff won't happen until the 22nd century

 

[Ollie]

Sorry if this sounds stupid or irrelevant, but if everyone uses brain implants in the future, then the actual brain will work less and less, and eventually do almost nothing on it's own, you could easily disable entirely a Nation or region or whatever by means of some kind of EMP?

The internet/social networking stuff is already affecting out memory and attention. This is a good example.