• mustbe3to20signs@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I go with a literal definition. Being able to identify the thought of a random stranger without calibration or them focussing on one specific thought.
    Don’t get me wrong, this is great for people who are unable to communicate otherwise. But in the end it is still an interpretation and therefore not error-proof.

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, so by your definition this is definitely not mind reading. I wouldn’t expect it to be error-proof ever. Not even usual communication is. And this is just a beginning - their success rate seems to be 40 %.

      • 0ops@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, I’m a good reader (regular old text reader, not mind), but I’m not perfect. Imo the line for this should be drawn at “accurate enough to be practically useful”