6 ms·
Of course it’s hackish. The technology is still somewhat rudimentary. They’re stimulating the visual cortex and the only way to do that (or stimulate brain area
by nvrspyx 7y ago
Of course it’s hackish. The technology is still somewhat rudimentary. They’re stimulating the visual cortex and the only way to do that (or stimulate brain areas in general) in a non-invasive way is using TMS, which isn’t “pinpoint” accurate. It’s shooting a strong magnetic pulse to stimulate the surface of the brain through the skull. Since TMS doesn’t have deep penetration for the receiver and neither do the electrodes for the senders, they’re limited to surface areas of the brain.
The places are not unusual.
In terms of the senders, it would probably have been easier to simply use an eye tracking camera to gauge which one they were looking at, but it wouldn’t have been “brain-to-brain”. We’re still a LONG ways off from telepathic-like communication. We’re also a long ways from even picking up “yes” or “no” signals from people’s thoughts. It’s still an important achievement nonetheless to get such readings from the senders and to make such manipulations to the receivers conscious visual perception, even if it’s not measuring conscious thought or creating a specific image.
- stinos 7y ago> We’re also a long ways from even picking up “yes” or “no” signals from people’s thoughts Yes and no. No because even though the tech exists, it's not exactly ready for the masses and doesn't work 100% and usually needs calibration and isn't exactly comfortable to wear. Yes because technology allowing people to form words on a computer by picking individual letters based on just EEG exists already; so that's more then yes/no. Likewise there's the experiments to have people move robot arms etc. (i.e like Neuralink from Musk, which isn't really new). You can even already buy commercial games where you control a cursor on the screen based on just 2 electrodes.
- im3w1l 7y agoYeah I think think the decoder is not state of the art for non-invasive decoders. The encoder may be? (But I believe we can do a lot better with invasive encoders though) So the novel thing is really combining an decoder and an encoder.
- noir_lord 7y agoMy understanding is that what musk is doing isn't new in the sense of novel but new in the sense that he's pushed the refinement of the technology to the outer envelope. Which is a pattern with him (and a good one) in that he takes existing tech and pushes it to the outer envelope, batteries, motors and rockets all existed long before musk was born but he's done valuable and interesting things with them. Someone had to make a technology for for market.
- stinos 7y agonew in the sense that he's pushed the refinement of the technology That's what I understood as well. For example there's a mutlitude of practical problems with current in-brain electrodes, ranging from limits in the amount of them, their lifetime, lifetime of connectors, surgeries being quite difficult, possible problems with infections etc. None of them are extremely hard to solve but it basically requires a ton of money being thrown at and that seems to be Musk's plan, allowing to get like 3000 electrodes with the preamp/digitizer stage implanted subcutaneously.
- nvrspyx 7y agoI was referring to detecting and distinguishing signals when someone is simply thinking of the word yes or no, similar to what you would expect from telepathy. But like I said in my previous comment, it’s an important step nonetheless for many reasons.
- nvrspyx 7y agoWhat you're describing is simply detecting attention, not conscious thought (e.g. inner voice), which is what I was referring to.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]