3 ms·

Not directly related to DARPA, but there are many people who have impairment in one or more of those senses. BCI technology could be transformative to the peopl

by brylie 7y ago

Not directly related to DARPA, but there are many people who have impairment in one or more of those senses. BCI technology could be transformative to the people who might not otherwise be able to access computers, even with best-in-class assistive technologies. Imagine opening a communication channel with someone who has locked-in syndrome. I just wish we could pour at least as many resources into researching humanistic technology as we do on militaristic "futures".

graycat 7y ago
You got me there. Sure, the research will likely at least clarify the challenges. For actually being very successful for the military purposes in the four years of the program, I'd say little to no hope. But where you got me is even if the military goals are not achieved in the four years, maybe there will be some progress for what you mention. And even if there is no such progress, go ahead and spend the money, if only to clarify the challenges also for the non-military hope. In effect, you have partially made my point: The DARPA program is for healthy people, say, super healthy airplane fighter pilots, each with a $100+ million office. As I noted, for them, they already have eyes, ears, .... And, I didn't mention but obvious, the mammalian visual system, and there fighter pilots are especially good, is deep into the brain and its design so that we can anticipate that nothing just external can hope to compete. Same for hearing. Much the same for speech. But, again, that holds for super healthy fighter pilots. For people without sight, hearing, etc. as you mentioned, the potential is much easier to believe in and much easier to justify whatever the chances. I don't always laugh at DARPA: (1) They played a constructive role in making TCP/IP real, and now that it has gone commercial, with the rest of the technology of the Internet, it is one of the bigger steps up in civilization. (2) They pushed self-driving vehicles. My view is that for current traffic on current US public roads, self-driving, i.e., without a human right there, is hopeless for a very long time. BUT!!! What DARPA did might actually be good enough for 1000 army trucks charging across a road in a desert in Saudi Arabia as in Gulf War I.
dtornabene 7y ago
the idea that this stuff is going to be primarily used for disabled people is, frankly, bullshit. Maybe the grant writing process, and some of the research, but this will be commodified, indeed, things like this already are; check out the emotiv headset. There are hundreds of millions of VC dollars pouring into this right now, they aren't doing it to help locked-in syndrome, whatever they say in interviews or press releases, they intend to get returns on their investments. It drives me absolutely bonkers when I see or hear irl people using the misfortune of a tiny, tiny subset of the population to defend this. And while I appreciate the note at the end about military futures (and I agree!), the idea that there is any "humanistic" use for tech like this is ... blinkered, to put it kindly. No one needs this, at all.
- lordCarbonFiber 7y ago
  Let's recontextualize that for you. Replace "this technology" with the mouse. No one needs a new way to interact with devices, information, etc indeed. Holding such luddite views is your right, but the rest of the more transhumanist aligned population can and will leave you behind (and help less abled people along the way).
  - graycat 7y ago
    I'm for doing better than a mouse, but tough to improve on fingers, do better than HTML on a screen, but tough to do better than eyes, do better than a pair of speakers for $30 but tough to improve on ears. Augment? Maybe. Really improve as in replace? For something external? No way.

by brylie 7y ago

graycat 7y ago

You got me there. Sure, the research will likely at least clarify the challenges. For actually being very successful for the military purposes in the four years of the program, I'd say little to no hope. But where you got me is even if the military goals are not achieved in the four years, maybe there will be some progress for what you mention. And even if there is no such progress, go ahead and spend the money, if only to clarify the challenges also for the non-military hope. In effect, you have partially made my point: The DARPA program is for healthy people, say, super healthy airplane fighter pilots, each with a $100+ million office. As I noted, for them, they already have eyes, ears, .... And, I didn't mention but obvious, the mammalian visual system, and there fighter pilots are especially good, is deep into the brain and its design so that we can anticipate that nothing just external can hope to compete. Same for hearing. Much the same for speech. But, again, that holds for super healthy fighter pilots. For people without sight, hearing, etc. as you mentioned, the potential is much easier to believe in and much easier to justify whatever the chances. I don't always laugh at DARPA: (1) They played a constructive role in making TCP/IP real, and now that it has gone commercial, with the rest of the technology of the Internet, it is one of the bigger steps up in civilization. (2) They pushed self-driving vehicles. My view is that for current traffic on current US public roads, self-driving, i.e., without a human right there, is hopeless for a very long time. BUT!!! What DARPA did might actually be good enough for 1000 army trucks charging across a road in a desert in Saudi Arabia as in Gulf War I.

dtornabene 7y ago

the idea that this stuff is going to be primarily used for disabled people is, frankly, bullshit. Maybe the grant writing process, and some of the research, but this will be commodified, indeed, things like this already are; check out the emotiv headset. There are hundreds of millions of VC dollars pouring into this right now, they aren't doing it to help locked-in syndrome, whatever they say in interviews or press releases, they intend to get returns on their investments. It drives me absolutely bonkers when I see or hear irl people using the misfortune of a tiny, tiny subset of the population to defend this. And while I appreciate the note at the end about military futures (and I agree!), the idea that there is any "humanistic" use for tech like this is ... blinkered, to put it kindly. No one needs this, at all.

lordCarbonFiber 7y ago
Let's recontextualize that for you. Replace "this technology" with the mouse. No one needs a new way to interact with devices, information, etc indeed. Holding such luddite views is your right, but the rest of the more transhumanist aligned population can and will leave you behind (and help less abled people along the way).
- graycat 7y ago
  I'm for doing better than a mouse, but tough to improve on fingers, do better than HTML on a screen, but tough to do better than eyes, do better than a pair of speakers for $30 but tough to improve on ears. Augment? Maybe. Really improve as in replace? For something external? No way.