4 ms·

I saw the article in the NYT. It mentions that the system is capable of 150 wpm, compared to older systems that could only do 8 wpm. “Previous implant-based c

I saw the article in the NYT. It mentions that the system is capable of 150 wpm, compared to older systems that could only do 8 wpm. “Previous implant-based communication systems have produced about eight words a minute. The new program generates about 150 a minute, the pace of natural speech.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/health/artificial-speech-brain-injury.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/health/artificial-speech-...

dang 8y ago
Thanks—since the paper is paywalled and HN tends to prefer the best popular article on such a topic, we've changed the URL to that from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1119-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1119-1. A pdf of the paper itself is linked from elsewhere in this thread.
- return1 8y ago
  Nature has an editorial on the paper that is better and free https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01328-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01328-x
  - dang 8y ago
    Ok, we've switched to that from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/health/artificial-speech-brain-injury.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/health/artificial-speech-.... Thanks!
airstrike 8y ago
Sadly the comment section on nytimes.com is absolutely appalling...
- oceliker 8y ago
  I usually find the NYTimes comments mostly fine, save for the expected ideological bias. I read your comment, went back to check comments, and couldn't believe my eyes. People think this is mind-reading. > the article is using a benevolence trope ... to cloak the real purpose of this research — interfaces for perfectly healthy (and likely rich) people to control maybe their car or television with their minds (which would be cool!). > Soon employers will be able to require that all employees will have their thoughts recorded while performing any work-related task, as "performance of these tasks carries no expectations of privacy." So many people missing the fact that the technique (ECoG) requires a surgical procedure. It's not a consumer product, and it won't be cheap or easy any time soon. Is there a Gell-Mann amnesia effect [1] for comments sections? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
  - rossdavidh 8y ago
    While your points are far more relevant, I feel obligated to point out also, that no employer would wish to hear the thoughts of their employees, because it would not be at all pleasant for them to hear all of that. Imagine working with employees who say out loud exactly what they are thinking all the time. No one wants that, not even (especially?) control freaks.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19741348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19741348
  - vokep 8y ago
    To be fair those ideas about mind-reading aren't absurd to bring up. Yes this device requires ECoG, but maybe this paves the road to figure out how to do something similar with an EEG helmet. The employer listening to your thoughts thing? yea I doubt it. Maybe possible at some point but unlikely it would be normalized anytime soon.
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    I'm not an expert in this field, but it seems like any mind reading we can do today with ECoG we can do tomorrow (or next decade) with EEG; the invasive electrodes make it easier, but we should be able to read signals non-invasively with better clarity in the future. When you say it won't be cheap/easy "any time soon," what does that mean to you? 10 years? 50? 100? The privacy concerns seem valid to me, though I'm not saying the sky is falling. I look forward to thinking text into a computer. I'd be extremely skeptical of any company demanding that I put their hardware on my scalp, but I'd be willing to put my hardware on my scalp and present some limited interface between it and the company hardware. Also, I expect the problems with invasive surgery to decline.
    - killjoywashere 8y ago

dang 8y ago

Thanks—since the paper is paywalled and HN tends to prefer the best popular article on such a topic, we've changed the URL to that from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1119-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1119-1. A pdf of the paper itself is linked from elsewhere in this thread.

return1 8y ago
Nature has an editorial on the paper that is better and free https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01328-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01328-x
- dang 8y ago
  Ok, we've switched to that from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/health/artificial-speech-brain-injury.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/health/artificial-speech-.... Thanks!

airstrike 8y ago

Sadly the comment section on nytimes.com is absolutely appalling...

oceliker 8y ago
I usually find the NYTimes comments mostly fine, save for the expected ideological bias. I read your comment, went back to check comments, and couldn't believe my eyes. People think this is mind-reading. > the article is using a benevolence trope ... to cloak the real purpose of this research — interfaces for perfectly healthy (and likely rich) people to control maybe their car or television with their minds (which would be cool!). > Soon employers will be able to require that all employees will have their thoughts recorded while performing any work-related task, as "performance of these tasks carries no expectations of privacy." So many people missing the fact that the technique (ECoG) requires a surgical procedure. It's not a consumer product, and it won't be cheap or easy any time soon. Is there a Gell-Mann amnesia effect [1] for comments sections? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  While your points are far more relevant, I feel obligated to point out also, that no employer would wish to hear the thoughts of their employees, because it would not be at all pleasant for them to hear all of that. Imagine working with employees who say out loud exactly what they are thinking all the time. No one wants that, not even (especially?) control freaks.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19741348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19741348
- vokep 8y ago
  To be fair those ideas about mind-reading aren't absurd to bring up. Yes this device requires ECoG, but maybe this paves the road to figure out how to do something similar with an EEG helmet. The employer listening to your thoughts thing? yea I doubt it. Maybe possible at some point but unlikely it would be normalized anytime soon.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  I'm not an expert in this field, but it seems like any mind reading we can do today with ECoG we can do tomorrow (or next decade) with EEG; the invasive electrodes make it easier, but we should be able to read signals non-invasively with better clarity in the future. When you say it won't be cheap/easy "any time soon," what does that mean to you? 10 years? 50? 100? The privacy concerns seem valid to me, though I'm not saying the sky is falling. I look forward to thinking text into a computer. I'd be extremely skeptical of any company demanding that I put their hardware on my scalp, but I'd be willing to put my hardware on my scalp and present some limited interface between it and the company hardware. Also, I expect the problems with invasive surgery to decline.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago