4 ms·

I guess the ultimate version of this is figuring out how to get your brain to generate the right image via direct simulation of the visual cortex, without paint

I guess the ultimate version of this is figuring out how to get your brain to generate the right image via direct simulation of the visual cortex, without painting anything on your retina at all.

lucb1e 7y ago
Is that just a "that would be cool" or do you know of research into this (even so much as a feasibility study)?
- blhack 7y ago
  This is what neuralink is doing.
  - enchiridion 7y ago
    They are specifically focusing on the visual cortex?
- mhh__ 7y ago
  I would keep an eye on Valve. I don't think they're anywhere near doing it yet but Gabe Newell heavily implied that he wants to steer Valve in this direction in his recent interview about Half Life: Alyx on IGN.
  - cjsawyer 7y ago
    I wonder if the logos with the red handle in the eye then on the back of the neck was foreshadowing
    - filoleg 7y ago
      That would be cool, but I doubt that was the original intent, given how old that logo is and that the "red handle" is just a valve, simply referencing the company name.
- willis936 7y ago
  There’s lots of stuff on BCI. People have been pursuing it for a decades and technology is maturing into handling the quantity of data. The limiting factor is the (apparently) obvious: skulls are thick. You get a terribly weak signal through a skull. Who’s going to get a sub-skull implant so they can play VRChat 2?
hanniabu 7y ago
I imagine this would result in things like in Spiderman Far From Home where you can be given an environment that isn't reality. Could be very malicious in the wrong hands.
- willis936 7y ago
  See: Black Mirror. All technology is bad in the wrong hands. Technology is always just a tool. Smartphones and webcams don't spy on people. People spy on people. People kill each other. People steal from the poor. Et cetera. The shape of the tool can be made to be malicious. For instance, a gun is only good as a ballistics toy that you have to be very creative to use constructively, or it can be used to kill. Nuclear bombs could be used for the most efficient nuclear power generation available (haw haw but it was seriously considered [0]). So, some questions we must always ask about a technology are: 1. How malicious is its shape? 2. Is it too powerful for use? 3. Does society have enough control over itself to actually prevent it from being made? This is one of the lines of thinking you see around AI, as the emergence of a powerful AI is seen as a fast approaching inevitability. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome
  - pasabagi 7y ago
    I sort of take the contrary view. I think 24 hour news coverage is inherently bad and cannot ever be good, because it doesn't give anchors enough time to react and analyse events, or viewers to digest and critically examine what they have watched. There are many examples like this, where the form itself is actually the problem even without any specifically malicious use.
    - willis936 7y ago
      You would say the shape of fast response news is malicious. I disagree. I think speed for accuracy is a tradeoff. There is a benefit to having fast response news. I don't have the patience to learn all of the psychological models necessary to substantiate this claim, but I do know people are more more motivated to take action by events that happen closer in time. Some details in breaking news will be wrong, but you wouldn't want to wait a week to learn about a school shooting or the stopping of all international travel.
cmehdy 7y ago
It also seems more practical to plug the signal "into the cables" than to try to pass information through the complexity of the eye. In which case I believe it is the thalamus[1] that we should aim to plug into. I can't imagine a whole lot of research can be carried out without running into issues with ethics though. [1] https://i.imgur.com/GsRkEg3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/GsRkEg3.jpg
- jacobush 7y ago
  If we are going by analogy, that would be more like plugging the USB camera directly into your CPU bus instead of USB. Your eye is a fine interface. Messing with the literally wet neural interface sounds very complicated.
  - Miraste 7y ago
    Counter-analogy: it's the difference between taking screenshots and taking pictures of the screen with your camera.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      Yes, analogies only go so far, especially in domains which are new or evolving. Which is why I added the sentence about literally wet neurons. That said, its not without precedent, these things my geeky brain found very interesting: http://www.motionfx.gr/film-overview.html http://www.motionfx.gr/film-overview.html https://www.blunham.com/Radar/TransmissionLines/PDU/PDU.html https://www.blunham.com/Radar/TransmissionLines/PDU/PDU.html

I guess the ultimate version of this is figuring out how to get your brain to generate the right image via direct simulation of the visual cortex, without painting anything on your retina at all.

lucb1e 7y ago

Is that just a "that would be cool" or do you know of research into this (even so much as a feasibility study)?

blhack 7y ago
This is what neuralink is doing.
- enchiridion 7y ago
  They are specifically focusing on the visual cortex?
mhh__ 7y ago
I would keep an eye on Valve. I don't think they're anywhere near doing it yet but Gabe Newell heavily implied that he wants to steer Valve in this direction in his recent interview about Half Life: Alyx on IGN.
- cjsawyer 7y ago
  I wonder if the logos with the red handle in the eye then on the back of the neck was foreshadowing
  - filoleg 7y ago
    That would be cool, but I doubt that was the original intent, given how old that logo is and that the "red handle" is just a valve, simply referencing the company name.
willis936 7y ago
There’s lots of stuff on BCI. People have been pursuing it for a decades and technology is maturing into handling the quantity of data. The limiting factor is the (apparently) obvious: skulls are thick. You get a terribly weak signal through a skull. Who’s going to get a sub-skull implant so they can play VRChat 2?

hanniabu 7y ago

I imagine this would result in things like in Spiderman Far From Home where you can be given an environment that isn't reality. Could be very malicious in the wrong hands.

willis936 7y ago
See: Black Mirror. All technology is bad in the wrong hands. Technology is always just a tool. Smartphones and webcams don't spy on people. People spy on people. People kill each other. People steal from the poor. Et cetera. The shape of the tool can be made to be malicious. For instance, a gun is only good as a ballistics toy that you have to be very creative to use constructively, or it can be used to kill. Nuclear bombs could be used for the most efficient nuclear power generation available (haw haw but it was seriously considered [0]). So, some questions we must always ask about a technology are: 1. How malicious is its shape? 2. Is it too powerful for use? 3. Does society have enough control over itself to actually prevent it from being made? This is one of the lines of thinking you see around AI, as the emergence of a powerful AI is seen as a fast approaching inevitability. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome
- pasabagi 7y ago
  I sort of take the contrary view. I think 24 hour news coverage is inherently bad and cannot ever be good, because it doesn't give anchors enough time to react and analyse events, or viewers to digest and critically examine what they have watched. There are many examples like this, where the form itself is actually the problem even without any specifically malicious use.
  - willis936 7y ago
    You would say the shape of fast response news is malicious. I disagree. I think speed for accuracy is a tradeoff. There is a benefit to having fast response news. I don't have the patience to learn all of the psychological models necessary to substantiate this claim, but I do know people are more more motivated to take action by events that happen closer in time. Some details in breaking news will be wrong, but you wouldn't want to wait a week to learn about a school shooting or the stopping of all international travel.

cmehdy 7y ago

It also seems more practical to plug the signal "into the cables" than to try to pass information through the complexity of the eye. In which case I believe it is the thalamus[1] that we should aim to plug into. I can't imagine a whole lot of research can be carried out without running into issues with ethics though. [1] https://i.imgur.com/GsRkEg3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/GsRkEg3.jpg

jacobush 7y ago
If we are going by analogy, that would be more like plugging the USB camera directly into your CPU bus instead of USB. Your eye is a fine interface. Messing with the literally wet neural interface sounds very complicated.
- Miraste 7y ago
  Counter-analogy: it's the difference between taking screenshots and taking pictures of the screen with your camera.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Yes, analogies only go so far, especially in domains which are new or evolving. Which is why I added the sentence about literally wet neurons. That said, its not without precedent, these things my geeky brain found very interesting: http://www.motionfx.gr/film-overview.html http://www.motionfx.gr/film-overview.html https://www.blunham.com/Radar/TransmissionLines/PDU/PDU.html https://www.blunham.com/Radar/TransmissionLines/PDU/PDU.html