# Is speedcubing ultimately doomed?



## Mike Hughey (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

Haven't even thought about this...


----------



## Bizarro (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

Forte said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2013)

RicardoRix said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2013)

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


----------



## Username (Aug 7, 2013)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

Worry about this when it happens.


----------



## Unparalleled (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> ...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 (Aug 7, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

This stuff won't happen until the 22nd century


----------



## Ollie (Aug 7, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> 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.


----------



## bundat (Aug 7, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> 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



This.

Computers would require interfacing (using a keyboard/mouse, touching a touch screen, mentally triggering an implant).
As long as it is detectable, it would be logical to ban any form of interfacing with mental implants on the stage. Any mental implant activity detected once the cube is revealed is instant dq.

External tools that unfairly assist the solve are banned, so if they went all that way in banning stickerless cubes in comp, using mental implants are even worse, like using skates in a marathon lol, and would certainly be banned. Since this is no different than lugging your laptop on stage during the solve and firing up cube explorer, except that nobody can see your laptop lol. 

The issue now would be detectability.
(click spoiler for a possible future scenario)


Spoiler



Usually, in such technologies, detectability is hard to conceal, due to the nature of control (interfacing via some form of communication, which is usually the vector of attack in activities such as wiretapping/eavesdropping/keylogging/cardskimming etc). There would probably be technology developed to hide this (encryption, detection concealment devices, etc), but then these themselves are probably also detectable in their own right. I can forsee many security layers piling up from this, and other security issues, needing security experts that are up-to-date in the latest anonimity/mental encryption trends/technologies. They could probably form an authoritative body, like a "World Mental Sports Authenticity Enforcement Commitee", and this WMSAEC can conduct inspections on mental games like chess, cubing, or even things like exams (unless these are considered obsolete, unless you are testing practical application of knowledge), enforcing the authenticity of the mental feat by discounting any possible mental implant usage. Sorta like testing athletes for steroids.

-----

Let's say society evolves such that memorization is obsolete, and everyone relies on their implants for remembering things, since it is 100% reliable memory storage with instant recall. Some people will argue that they have the cube algs stored in implant, and need to activate it to recall them.

Sorry, but you'll have to do it the old fashioned way, and memorize the alg. It's like physical training for sports. It's not really necessary to be physically strong and fast with all the technologies we have, but that's how you compete in that sport, physically without using any tech. So mental sports should also have the same treatment.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 7, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> I am not so sure about that. Please explain how this would make Feliks/Mats do a sub 5.



Sorry, I was specifically referring to 3x3x3 BLD here - I could be sub-45 at 3x3x3 BLD as described; I was suggesting that, with tweaking, this could get someone like Marcell or Alejandro sub-20 BLD. As for speedsolving, it would require a much better interface and a lot more tweaking, I think, to get someone actually sub-5.

As for predictions that this won't happen until next century, I honestly don't expect the technology to become quality any time soon. (A logical starting goal might be to try to duplicate Google Glass, but implanted, so the display superimposes itself on your brain's vision field and audio from the device mixes in with your true audio. I'm saying I suspect it will be quite a while before we get that - perhaps even 22nd century or maybe even later if some of it becomes too difficult for us to figure out.) But I'm fascinated that even rudimentary experiments could actually become useful in certain small fields (including blindsolving).

And Chris, yes - it seems like a form of "telepathy" shouldn't be all that hard to do, if we can work out a "pipe" large enough for significant communication. It seems like right now the early experiments are focusing on replacing some lost or atrophied capability, so using thoughts you'd normally use to move your hand to trigger an artificial hand to do the same, etc. In order to communicate like this comfortably, we'd have to find a way to send stimuli to a computer rapidly that wouldn't require destroying some capability we already have - I think we don't understand what we're doing yet enough to even know how difficult or easy that might be. Except that a few crazy experimenters might very well choose to give up some capability we all take for granted, like use of an arm, to get this ability soon, which is an interesting, scary, and morally challenging idea.

To imagine relatively low-tech telepathy, imagine that you have a hand that has been removed and you are able to interface with your arm in a way that allows you to use an artificial hand. Now you simply replace the artificial hand with a detector, try to form letters in the deaf alphabet to spell out words, and transmit that to someone else's cochlear implant that reads the words to the other person's brain. Voilà - telepathy. Not very good telepathy, though, since it would take a lot of work and time to transmit even a short message, but the rest then is just optimization, right?


----------



## qqwref (Aug 7, 2013)

This scenario bears a great deal of similarity to the issues faced by performance-enhancing drugs in traditional athletics. I really think that once this development happens we will just have to start explicitly banning mental implants (and Google Glass-type devices) in all cubing competitions, and perhaps annulling results if someone gets past our detectors and is then proven to be using an implant. It's certainly not interesting to practice speedcubing when a great deal of it is done for you automatically.


----------



## Wassili (Aug 7, 2013)

What if you have a brain implant, but you use it for a completely different reason than speedcubing? I guess you would need a license of some sorts, but I still don't think that would provide enough proof.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 7, 2013)

Nope, competitive speedcubing would only be for implant-free people. Just like how powerlifting is only for people who don't take steroids for medical reasons - or how marathon running is only for people who don't have leg injuries confining them to wheelchairs (since some wheelchairs are significantly faster than running).

The only way implants would be acceptable would be if you could prove they have no effect on your cubing. But indeed, how could you, without letting someone look inside your thoughts and analyze the detailed workings of your brain? An implant might provide enhanced attention or pattern recognition, or improve memory even without having the kind of BLD effect Mike Hughey proposed, or just improve the efficiency of the rest of the brain in an unnatural way. If you can't know for sure whether someone is cheating or not, it's not fair to the "natural" cubers to give the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Toquinha1977 (Aug 7, 2013)

Interesting and worthy of discussion, even though the technology is pretty far off. Even today, it's entirely possible that a person with a small hidden ear piece could be receiving instructions from someone viewing remotely (via hidden camera), essentially making it a team BLD solve. Heck, given that people generally provide their own blindfolds, it wouldn't be too hard to build something with a small video screen, receiving video feed from a camera hidden in a shirt button. You wouldn't even need an invasive brain implant for that. 

As for an brain implant camera that saves an image, this would be of limited use to a solver unless they actually knew how to solve it (ie: the image wouldn't keep changing with the cube). If the user was able to install software to automatically generate a God's algorithm, then we're talking. If the devices can be controlled with thought, then they could be accessed without detection.

However, I don't see this being an issue as far as competitive speedsolving is concerned. Using the scenarios I mentioned in the first paragraph, there isn't any reason why this should be a problem right now. But when we're already seeing sub-30 times in BLD, is that even necessary? On top of that, record beating times are subject to scrutiny and deconstruction, and if the solve was determined to use a method that can't be adequately explained by the solver (ie: it doesn't follow an established method like 3OP), it'd be disqualified.

Also, Rubik's Cube solving isn't exactly lucrative. While technology gets cheaper with mass production, given the price of healthcare (especially for voluntary procedures), $500 won at an the world's competition isn't going to go very far in recouping expenses, which include not only the electronics, but the maintenance (it's a foreign implant, which your body will try to reject, and you'll have a buildup of scar tissue that would need to be periodically removed).


----------



## CubezUBR (Aug 7, 2013)

to be honest, with the advance of technology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDtOg4UPVYw), will soon destroy many sport/hobbies, just think about brain implants that could help. but would anybody use them? whats the point? winning a comp because of a computer is like getting a f2l+oll+pll skip, it requres no skill and is not worth anything. they should create catagories if something like this happens: winners for fakes and winners for real people


----------



## Renslay (Aug 7, 2013)

This whole conversation reminds me of something... Ah, there you are:



> Doc: ...but in the future, we don't need horses. We have horseless carriages called auto-mo-biles.
> 
> An Old Timer chuckles.
> 
> ...


----------



## LNZ (Aug 8, 2013)

I do believe that solving 3x3x3 cubes had it peak in the early 1980's.

Although the scene has made a major come back with much more diversity of puzzles to solve, it will never reach the heights it was in the early 1980's.

So from this, this interest (to some) will live on in some capacity, but don't expect miracles!


----------



## BluShehn (Aug 8, 2013)

This idea scares me, haha. But This is where I think technology shouldn't replace certain everyday items of our lives, such as memorization skills. I hope Speedcubing doesn't die off just because of a brain implant that allows for a thought out execution algorithm during inspection. If we let the technology do the work for us, we will never know what it's like to do it ourselves, as human beings.


----------



## irontwig (Aug 8, 2013)

BluShehn said:


> But This is where I think technology shouldn't replace certain everyday items of our lives, such as memorization skills.



Isn't writing a technology that replaces memorization skills?


----------



## BillyRain (Aug 8, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Nope, competitive speedcubing would only be for implant-free people. Just like how powerlifting is only for people who don't take steroids for medical reasons - or how marathon running is only for people who don't have leg injuries confining them to wheelchairs (since some wheelchairs are significantly faster than running).
> 
> The only way implants would be acceptable would be if you could prove they have no effect on your cubing. But indeed, how could you, without letting someone look inside your thoughts and analyze the detailed workings of your brain? An implant might provide enhanced attention or pattern recognition, or improve memory even without having the kind of BLD effect Mike Hughey proposed, or just improve the efficiency of the rest of the brain in an unnatural way. If you can't know for sure whether someone is cheating or not, it's not fair to the "natural" cubers to give the benefit of the doubt.



Yep. Implants would be treated in exactly the same way as a performance enhancing drug and so would be against regulations.

So no, speedcubing isn't going to be wiped out when we all become terminators.


----------



## Dene (Aug 8, 2013)

You guys are all wasting your time thinking about this. The singularity and the rise of the machines will come first, and we'll all be dead.


----------



## tx789 (Aug 8, 2013)

You could say that anything is doomed. Thinking about this may make you want to quit.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 8, 2013)

Renslay said:


> This whole conversation reminds me of something... Ah, there you are:



That made me laugh so hard that I needed to make up an excuse for my fellow coworkers. My excuse was to let them read it as well.



LNZ said:


> I do believe that solving 3x3x3 cubes had it peak in the early 1980's.



Playing with it certainly. Solving it (with the help of books and newspapers) maybe. Speedsolving it....peaking the last few years thanks to the internet and WCA



BillyRain said:


> So no, speedcubing isn't going to be wiped out when we all become terminators.



That is discrimination. Speedcubing should be for everyone, also for terminators. I would love to see a video of the Michael Halczuk terminator when he gets a pop. Then again, that might just be how it all got started



Dene said:


> You guys are all wasting your time thinking about this. The singularity and the rise of the machines will come first, and we'll all be inside the matrix.



There, fixed that for you


----------



## legoanimate98 (Aug 8, 2013)

It might not kill speedcubing, it could just change it. There are plenty of cube simulators that you can use if you have a computer, but I never do because I don't feel like learning how to work them. With these implants, cubing could happen completely mentally and you could turn a digital cube with your mind. It would make cubing more focused on methods and recognition and less on hardware and turning speed. I personally think that it would make competitions interesting for a while, but I would probably stop competing because there would no longer be a social aspect to cubing.


----------

