10 ms·
Bryan Johnson invests $100M in Kernel to unlock the power of the human brain
- azinman2 10y ago“We can program yeast to do a specific function. We can expect the same path with neural code.” Ummm... that's quite a big leap!
- untilHellbanned 10y agoYep. Biologist here lol. It would be interesting to know how much biology this dude truly explored before plunking down his $100M on some other dude promising him to revolutionize the brain.
- hprotagonist 10y agoBME / sensory neurosystems guy here. >It would be interesting to know how much biology this dude truly explored before plunking down his $100M ... Not enough.
- forgotmysn 10y agoWould you guys prefer that Johnson donate his $100M to the NIH or a university that's already working on related research, or is there benefit to him taking a different route and funding Berger and this org directly?
- hprotagonist 10y agoI think i'm largely agnostic about that in principle. In practice, collaborations are hard and setting up new ones is even harder, so striking out into the wild and being able to do cool stuff fast generally costs more than 100M.
- forgotmysn 10y agoFrom what I understand though, that's exactly why Johnson invested his own money and turned down outside investment: this is just the first step on a very long road, and it doesn't sound like he anticipates a viable return in an amount of time that a venture fund could justify participating in.
- hprotagonist 10y ago>" The futuristic device, which Johnson says might actually not need to be implanted beneath the skull at all, is designed to facilitate communication between brain cells by hacking the “neural code” that enables our brain to store and recall key information. " Estimated timescale: centuries. Not for want of trying, but we have no credible idea what "the" neural code is, even in subcortical areas that are relatively simple to study like the optic and auditory nerves. Once you're anywhere beyond the inferior colliculus, all bets are officially off. (and if you have any good ideas, drop me a line!) Our best tools fail to explain anything particularly interesting about much, much simpler analogous systems: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055624 http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055624.
- bra-ket 10y agohopefully they've learned something from Blue Brain: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-brain-project-went-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-bra...
- the_watcher 10y agoOddly enough, the applicable quote is from The Martian: "We built a lunar lander from scratch in seven years." Hard things get done by people who try to do them. Seriously, it's his own money.
- eutectic 10y agoAssuming this refers to the Apollo Lunar Module, landing on the moon was an engineering challenge based on known science, and it still cost an obscene amount of money for questionable benefit. This is a relatively small sum being spent on a project for which very little of the basic science is in place. It may be his own money he's spending, but everyone else is also free to give their honest opinion that he's throwing it down the drain.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoYou realize that project cost billions of dollars with insanely huge teams of smart people working with established principles of physics, chemistry, and so on rather than mostly unknowns in neuroscience? No practical comparison between this and Apollo despite me wanting an Apollo-style effort put into certain problems we face. Including understanding the brain although maybe communications infrastructure, cheap computing, and MOOC's first. That will give us more brains for Apollo-style endeavors.
- robotresearcher 10y ago> [Apollo] cost billions of dollars I looked it up - around $20.4B in 1960s dollars, so $160B today. $20B per mooon landing. Not counting Mercury or Gemini. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1
- nickpsecurity 10y agoWow. Much higher than I remembered. It's like the brute force approach to getting something done except the force is sheer dollars and labor focus on one goal.
- 10y ago
- lsh123 10y agoSmells like another Theranos: too good to be true
- wilam 10y agoIt is his own money in his own company, so very different.
- tim333 10y agoI googled a bit. The background is quite interesting. Johnson founded and sold Braintree which is where the money came from. The main brain tech guy is Theodore Berger who has tested implants in rats, monkeys and humans with some success http://singularityhub.com/2015/11/15/first-human-tests-of-memory-boosting-brain-implant-a-big-leap-forward/ http://singularityhub.com/2015/11/15/first-human-tests-of-me... Berger on video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHubR09oKKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHubR09oKKE
- pithos 10y agoAlso looks like they are trying to hire the right (?) sort of people (from http://kernel.co/jobs/ http://kernel.co/jobs/): -VP OF ENGINEERING -DIRECTOR TO THE CEO -DATA SYSTEMS ENGINEER / DATA SCIENTIST -MODELER FOR NEUROPROSTHESIS ALGORITHMS -MACHINE LEARNING FOR NEUROPROSTHESIS -SCALABLE NEURAL INTERFACES LEAD (ARCHITECT) -NEUROSCIENTIST
- nickpsecurity 10y agoOh no. The guy behind my favorite company on bootstrapping page got rich selling it to a top schemer in payments industry and fell for others' bullshit that throwing money at neuroscience will make miracles happen. Wow. What an ending...
- kevinalexbrown 10y agoThrowing money at neuroscience hasn't been so bad, has it?
- nickpsecurity 10y agoThe link from bra-ket... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-brain-project-went-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-bra... ...illustrates the problem well. Here's a nice quote: "Although researchers worldwide were publishing tens of thousands of neuroscience studies every year, neither our understanding of basic brain functions nor our ability to treat brain disorders seemed to be progressing much. " It's mostly been a failure. The successes have been very, very limited from what I've read. I'm a non-expert that follows generalist scientific publications that report on breakthroughs and interesting products. So, maybe I've missed all the amazing things neuroscience is doing for people's health outside actual surgeries. I just figure spectacular results coming from all the grants and private investment would've made it into things I read. Rarely anything does past "Hmm. That study had some interesting results that might go somewhere some time with a lot more work." Followed by others that seem to contradict it or at least make me wonder. I remember recently there was an article showing renewed interests in glial cells since they might be more critical to brain function than previously thought. Imagine that. All this research and money thrown at it since the beginning of the field operated on the assumption that they weren't significant. There were others I saw about neural communication in previous years that overturned prior beliefs. One can wonder what new fundamentals we'll learn in this next decade that will challenge our prior beliefs. Introducing technology that improves how something functions usually needs accurate knowledge about how that something fundamentally works. Investments like Johnson's bet that results will be achieved without that knowledge or even with incorrect knowledge. Kind of like old gold rushes where people bet there'd be gold all over the place in certain areas without even prospecting them first. That's the feeling I get looking at neural ventures. Note: We had them in the past, too. Implants to control or expand the mind, cause hallucinations, effortlessly give you lucid dreams, and so on. Enough interesting stuff happened that some tactical accomplishments might come from just throwing money at random stuff. Yet, all the interesting stuff of past and present still hasn't given a non-drug guarantee on things as basic as insomnia, depression, or ADD. All failure so far in big picture.
- slyrus 10y agoDamn, I thought the guy was going to throw $100M at linux kernel developers. That would be nice.
- dEnigma 10y agoI too briefly got excited when reading the headline. That would've really made my day. So many people could work full-time on the Linux kernel.
- Roritharr 10y agoMaking sure one of the most used parts of software in the world gets proper funding for additional security audits, better performance optimization for more platforms, leveling the playing field for small hardware vendors who can't afford their own Kernel Developers, allowing for more disruptive technology on top of the Linux kernel? Nah. Not really Valley Style, lets just fund another AI Moonshot. Because there isn't enough money in AI already. I mean sure, the ROI investing into the Linux Kernel is 0. But so much money is flowing into AI Moonshots currently that look like their value will be 0 that one gets disheartened quickly when important infrastructure for everyone is needing cash badly, but there is no businessmodel...
- paavokoya 10y agoThis is my exact argument for why "free market" doesn't always work. Sometimes you need to subsidize an unprofitable venture to truly move forward. Then innovation and profit models come after the initial hurdle is over. Most investors don't want to subsidize for long-term profit though.
- mamon 10y agoBlaming "free market" for Linux kernel underfunding is very twisted logic. I would argue that any GPL-ed software is a hallmark of communism as it is public property and noone is allowed to make any money on it (at least not directly). Therefore, the strongest motivation for hard work (profit) is absent.
- elcct 10y agoWhat if the locked power of human brain is pure stupidity? Well... there is only one way to find out.
- fleitz 10y ago"unlock the power of the human brain" lol, why not save yourself $100 million and just take a Deepak Chopra seminar?
- rms_returns 10y agoI'd read somewhere that the workings of our brains are just too complex for us to understand, or rather, we are just too good to understand it thoroughly to "unlock the powers". You see, if the brain was simple enough for us to understand its workings, we would not be even capable of understanding the basics of the nervous system functioning (we would have been just too dumb with such simple brains!), and therein lies this irony - We will never be able to fully understand our own brains, because that very impossibility has given us the ability to understand almost everything else in this universe.
- cholmon 10y ago...what?
- spynxic 10y agorms_returns is saying that our own intelligence and ability to comprehend things is a function of the complexity of our brains. So, low complexity results in under-performing intelligent ability. On the other hand, high complexity results in a higher performing brain but more difficult to understand. I wouldn't necessarily agree with this argument because I suspect intelligent ability is only partially related to neural architecture. Additionally, the ability to perceive things lies in having some kind of framework in which a question can be formed.
- robg 10y agoNeural implants are only a matter of time and money. Good to see someone making a bold bet here and with his own money and time.
- golergka 10y agoWhat's with all the negativity on the comments here? Are all moonshots doomed after Theranos? Or may be there's already solid proof that this is the next Theranos? I'm a very skeptical and pessimistic man, but can we extend at least some benefit of a doubt here, please.
- the_watcher 10y agoIt's astonishing, given that we're all communicating via a technology that would essentially be considered magic as little as 50 years ago.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- partycoder 10y agoIf they can find a way to tweak genes to force the brain to have more glial cells, the type of cells that support neuron functions, or enhance the glial performance, they can eventually make people sustain high mental performance for longer periods of time. One of the findings after analyzing Einstein's brain was that he had a higher ratio of glias to neurons.
- anindha 10y agoTrying and failing is better than not trying. Its his $100m and he earned the right to take a shot at this. I have watched Bryan talk before and have been following him. He is determined enough to at least make a significant contribution in this area.
- tristanho 10y agoThe negativity in these comments is astounding. Here's someone who's investing his own hard-earned money into a "device aimed at reducing cognitive deficiencies for sufferers of conditions like Alzheimer’s and dementia." And all anyone can do is complain that it's infeasible or that he's unqualified. I don't know about you, but I want more people working on these problems, not less. Seems very reminiscent of when Musk was starting SpaceX and everyone assumed he didn't know anything about the domain and would automatically fail.
- cjdkcnsnd 10y agoSo when you other HN'ers make a formulaic "I'm shocked at all the negativity here" post, is it typically with the intention of riding the contrarian karma train to the top of every thread, or do you actually hold these positions?
- skrebbel 10y agoI write such a comment occasionally too, so I'll be happy to answer despite how downvoted you already are: a bit of both. I mean, I can't be the only one who considers HN's karma machine a fun game. An interesting and occasionally insightful game, but still, a game.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoThat's a good point. Space travel was something whose principles were well-understood with plenty of worked examples. Quite unlike the Johnson investment we're talking about but let's continue. It was mainly hard to engineer on a budget due to all the variables and components involved. I was really excited but cautious about that company. I really wanted them to succeed. So, lets test your theory by having a look at one of their regularly, successful launches that 14 years investment brought them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arIc1NlHvV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arIc1NlHvV0
- tim333 10y agoThe Facebook sattelite launch blowing up was not typical.
- mianos 10y agoThis reads like he really liked the Nexus book trilogy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nexus_Trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nexus_Trilogy Even some of the language is the same. The theme of the book is 'running a kernel over neurons'. It is even an open source kernel.
- bambax 10y ago> a company with the sole purpose of building hardware and software to augment human intelligence Human intelligence, while fallible and easy to turn off, is arguably our best feature. It's also very versatile. Bryan Johnson can spend his money any way he likes of course, but one has to wonder why there aren't more initiatives to augment our senses instead of working on intelligence (our own or the intelligence of machines). I would love to gain a permanent ability to see in the dark, hear ultrasounds, know where North is at all times, etc. And "all" one has to do with a new sensor is plug it in: the brain is very good at making sense of any new signal, and using it, without prompting or training. The plugin-in part is non-trivial, of course (although there are shortcuts, such as using the tongue as a crude V0); but one can imagine that once we're able to build a general API to the human brain, many gadgets could be developed for it.
- edanm 10y ago"And "all" one has to do with a new sensor is plug it in: the brain is very good at making sense of any new signal, and using it, without prompting or training." That doesn't sound right. E.g. see stories of blind people who have gotten sight at a late age - I think the tendency is for them not to be able to really utilize sight the way sighted-from-birth people do.