7 ms·

I don't think it's quite as far fetched or far out. The fundamental point of the neural lace is increased bandwidth OUTPUT from the human mind so that it can b

I don't think it's quite as far fetched or far out. The fundamental point of the neural lace is increased bandwidth OUTPUT from the human mind so that it can be INPUT for some other process. Bare with me... Right now I am using 2 thumbs to output this message. Not very efficient. I could hop on a keyboard and up my output bandwith to 10 fingers. That would be faster but still bottlenecked on the mechanics of my hands. Sure I could use voice buts it's loud and mostly words only. Not great for quiet rooms or coding with special characters. Now imagine an integrated set of circuits directly connected to my brain. It wouldn't have to be many. Let's say 10. Now with training I could learn to activate each circuit. Even if the training was only for a digital signal of 0 or 1 that's 2^10 unique signals. Not to mention these could be modifiers of other outputs. And the real kicker is this signal generation happens at the speed of thought. Imagine coding in an IDE at that speed! I didn't touch on the whole AI threat but the point is simply that if we need to be defensive or offensive against an AI we need to be able to output meaning quicker than running to the server room and unplugging HAL.

aroman 9y ago
Even getting reliable and useful output from the brain is still much much harder than you think it is. > Now imagine an integrated set of circuits directly connected to my brain. It wouldn't have to be many. Let's say 10. 10 circuits connect to what, exactly? How? Where? Attaching electrodes to existing cells is invasive and uncomfortable (to say the least), and temporary because scar tissue forms and severs the connection in time. But suppose you developed some way of reliably, durably, and non-invasively attaching external artificial neurons into your brain (to be sure, a huge jump). Where would you put these neurons, exactly? What would they synapse to? Just one or two particular neurons? How would you locate them during "install time"? How would the user access them during "run time"? Most brain-machine interfaces use motor neurons because they're easy to access. Maybe that'd be a good route, but again, doing this reliably and non-invasively is really hard, especially if there isn't a clear feedback loop. I don't know why, but a lot of people seem to think that neuroscience is a lot closer to being "solved" than it actually is. Truth is, we barely have any idea how the brain works, let alone how we can meaningfully augment and interact with it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tylerjwilk00 9y ago
  I agree. It's certainly not a plug and play device from your PC and there are hurdles to cross for sure. But, over time, you could learn to control signal output just as a baby does. The mapping will be chaotic and unique to each person but every brain is different. When you imagine a yellow elephant it is probably slightly different than my process. You don't know how you do it but you do. If a reward mechanism is tied to signal output a growing brain will figure it out.
flukus 9y ago
> And the real kicker is this signal generation happens at the speed of thought. Imagine coding in an IDE at that speed! I already do I type virtually at the same speed I internally verbalize what I'm typing, so any bandwidth increase would have to bypass the inner voice part of the brain, if that's even possible. There might be some room for improvement in other areas, like "got to definition", but hardly revolutionary.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tylerjwilk00 9y ago
  This may be the tail wagging the dog. It wouldn't surprise me if the internal voice slows to match the typing speed. People that have gone blind have learned to hear and process language at astonishing speeds that an average human couldn't begin to interpret.

aroman 9y ago

Even getting reliable and useful output from the brain is still much much harder than you think it is. > Now imagine an integrated set of circuits directly connected to my brain. It wouldn't have to be many. Let's say 10. 10 circuits connect to what, exactly? How? Where? Attaching electrodes to existing cells is invasive and uncomfortable (to say the least), and temporary because scar tissue forms and severs the connection in time. But suppose you developed some way of reliably, durably, and non-invasively attaching external artificial neurons into your brain (to be sure, a huge jump). Where would you put these neurons, exactly? What would they synapse to? Just one or two particular neurons? How would you locate them during "install time"? How would the user access them during "run time"? Most brain-machine interfaces use motor neurons because they're easy to access. Maybe that'd be a good route, but again, doing this reliably and non-invasively is really hard, especially if there isn't a clear feedback loop. I don't know why, but a lot of people seem to think that neuroscience is a lot closer to being "solved" than it actually is. Truth is, we barely have any idea how the brain works, let alone how we can meaningfully augment and interact with it.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tylerjwilk00 9y ago
I agree. It's certainly not a plug and play device from your PC and there are hurdles to cross for sure. But, over time, you could learn to control signal output just as a baby does. The mapping will be chaotic and unique to each person but every brain is different. When you imagine a yellow elephant it is probably slightly different than my process. You don't know how you do it but you do. If a reward mechanism is tied to signal output a growing brain will figure it out.

flukus 9y ago

> And the real kicker is this signal generation happens at the speed of thought. Imagine coding in an IDE at that speed! I already do I type virtually at the same speed I internally verbalize what I'm typing, so any bandwidth increase would have to bypass the inner voice part of the brain, if that's even possible. There might be some room for improvement in other areas, like "got to definition", but hardly revolutionary.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tylerjwilk00 9y ago
This may be the tail wagging the dog. It wouldn't surprise me if the internal voice slows to match the typing speed. People that have gone blind have learned to hear and process language at astonishing speeds that an average human couldn't begin to interpret.