6 ms·

The title is misleading. DARPA has funded teams to work on minimally invasive brain interfaces, but AFAIK they have yet to be achieved.

AussieWog93 5y ago
And as someone who studied this field at a PhD level, I would be shocked if they managed to achieve a level of control on par with even a standard Xbox controller any time within the next two decades. The whole field is propelled by deliberate misinformation and hype used to farm grants.
- graderjs 5y ago
  Really, is it really so hard? I had the impression from seeing those videos of people operating robotic limbs through biofeedback or typing through biofeedback or the write-ups on that AI related work to determine words from brainwave patterns that a lot of this stuff was achieving impressive capabilities. but maybe the sort of sensory bandwidth like required to operate say a helicopter is just a completely other order of magnitude to think that you could do it through the same channel. What's the main blockers or bottlenecks in this space?
  - dexwiz 5y ago
    I would imagine some of those videos are the hype and misinformation that the GP is talking about
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      Yes, a lot of the videos shown (such as the pig walking cycle in the Neuralink presentation) deliberately misrepresent the challenges, limitations and lack of progress with the technology in an attempt to get more funding. I guess you could argue that people writing the grants should perform more due diligence, but at the same time I believe we should be able to trust scientists to act ethically and honestly in the same way we trust doctors.
      - graderjs 5y ago
        At the same time I reckon we should throw money at stuff even half- (not baked, but, half-) completed...because the pay-off is high (if it works) even if the current state of art right now is weak. I get your frustration at the perceived support for a research direction you view as wrong, but I think this is normal, especially in emerging tech. There are often competing approaches, and funding favorites. But I didn't know this--what you said about the difficulty of signal collection, and rejection--and really value that alternative perspective to the one I've seen in the press about using AI, which you think is overblown. Thank you! :)
        AussieWog93 5y ago
        >At the same time I reckon we should throw money at stuff even half- (not baked, but, half-) completed...because the pay-off is high (if it works) even if the current state of art right now is weak. I don't disagree with that line of reasoning in general - moonshot projects have led to amazing discoveries in the past and should definitely be funded. In this particular case, though, there are both very, very strong arguments to suggest that we reached the peak of what the current paradigm can achieve back in the late 00's - as well as very, very strong (financial and cultural) pressure to ensure all new research projects in the field adhere to the current paradigm. >I get your frustration at the perceived support for a research direction you view as wrong, but I think this is normal, especially in emerging tech. It's so, so much deeper than that. The researchers in the area know full well what they're doing is complete bullshit, but toe the line anyway because that's where the funding comes from. It's not just a wrong research direction but a soft and invisible form of academic fraud. This is not normal (or at least shouldn't be normal), and we should not be feeding the beast. We could possibly have much, much stronger BCI tech today if the incumbent culture weren't actively impeding innovation.
        graderjs 5y ago
        Wow, man. Thanks for sharing more how you feel about it. I thought it was just equal competing approaches, different camps. But you tell a different story. I really appreciate that. That's not just fraud, I think...but it's like wasted scientific capacity. You know? They're researchers, they could be working to build something, but instead they're taking money on an approach that can't work. That's sick. Feels bad.... So what do you think's the solution? Like if you could take 10 million dollars to do your own lab with BCI tech what direction would you go in? ;p ;) xx
  - grp000 5y ago
    I thought a lot of those videos worked off of nerve impulses at the terminated end of the limb.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      The guy with the robotic arm that looks like Bryan Cranston (can't remember his name off the top of my head) definitely uses nerve endings at the end of the limb. Others, such as the patient in Krishna Shenoy's 2017 paper, though, use invasive BCIs.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >I had the impression from seeing those videos of people operating robotic limbs through biofeedback or typing through biofeedback or the write-ups on that AI related work to determine words from brainwave patterns that a lot of this stuff was achieving impressive capabilities. Sticking to BCI specifically and not other forms for biofeedback, most of those demos you see come from people with invasive, penetrative electrode arrays such as the Utah array. In some people, these sensors can enable a high level of control and performance (not Xbox controller level, but still Atari controller level which would be incredibly useful for people with Motor Neurone Disease). Unfortunately the body rejects them after a few months and they're back to square one. To be honest with you, I don't think that the problem's intractable. Perhaps a clever materials engineer could develop a coating for the electrode arrays that the body accepts long-term and allows the user to train for years rather than months. Perhaps we could develop a new form of sensor altogether. I don't know specifically what the answer is, but it won't come from the current paradigm of "turn garbage data into non-garbage output through the power of Machine Learning somehow" that we've been stuck in for the better part of two decades. And unfortunately, projects adhering to that paradigm is where all of the funding (and people) goes to.
    - cinquemb 5y ago
      > "turn garbage data into non-garbage output through the power of Machine Learning somehow" Yeah, i was pretty turned off by this in the lab i've worked at/contracted for. A lot of support for this kind of stuff wrt EEF neurofeedback while ignoring the physics of what could be done with the raw data (if the PI actually understands or had a E&M class at least). Ppl in charge of getting the grants don't really care about the fact we do not gain any insight into whats going on when we use black box systems… oh well. I'd be happy to play around with biosemi 128 electrode cap+array + dsp + beamformers[0] and openemu[1] for two decades, deff not gonna happen in academia though. [0] https://github.com/cinquemb/LCMVBeamformer https://github.com/cinquemb/LCMVBeamformer [1] https://github.com/cinquemb/OpenEmu https://github.com/cinquemb/OpenEmu
    - kodah 5y ago
      I did cognitive neurotherapy after a series of TBIs. The therapy seemed to work on me, though, what I've heard is that it's hit and miss. Of course, there's always the chance that I'd have recovered that way anyway, but given the state my academics were in I doubt it. For reference, the machine I used employed a bike game that supported movement across the screen. I eventually could make the bike go faster as well as up and down, nearly on command. It focused on alpha, beta, and theta waves measured by diodes stuck to your scalp. Not sure if that narrows that down, but I'm curious to know your thoughts.
- pyinstallwoes 5y ago
  Yeah, but have you worked at the DARPA level?

AussieWog93 5y ago

And as someone who studied this field at a PhD level, I would be shocked if they managed to achieve a level of control on par with even a standard Xbox controller any time within the next two decades. The whole field is propelled by deliberate misinformation and hype used to farm grants.

graderjs 5y ago
Really, is it really so hard? I had the impression from seeing those videos of people operating robotic limbs through biofeedback or typing through biofeedback or the write-ups on that AI related work to determine words from brainwave patterns that a lot of this stuff was achieving impressive capabilities. but maybe the sort of sensory bandwidth like required to operate say a helicopter is just a completely other order of magnitude to think that you could do it through the same channel. What's the main blockers or bottlenecks in this space?
- dexwiz 5y ago
  I would imagine some of those videos are the hype and misinformation that the GP is talking about
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    Yes, a lot of the videos shown (such as the pig walking cycle in the Neuralink presentation) deliberately misrepresent the challenges, limitations and lack of progress with the technology in an attempt to get more funding. I guess you could argue that people writing the grants should perform more due diligence, but at the same time I believe we should be able to trust scientists to act ethically and honestly in the same way we trust doctors.
    - graderjs 5y ago
      At the same time I reckon we should throw money at stuff even half- (not baked, but, half-) completed...because the pay-off is high (if it works) even if the current state of art right now is weak. I get your frustration at the perceived support for a research direction you view as wrong, but I think this is normal, especially in emerging tech. There are often competing approaches, and funding favorites. But I didn't know this--what you said about the difficulty of signal collection, and rejection--and really value that alternative perspective to the one I've seen in the press about using AI, which you think is overblown. Thank you! :)
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        >At the same time I reckon we should throw money at stuff even half- (not baked, but, half-) completed...because the pay-off is high (if it works) even if the current state of art right now is weak. I don't disagree with that line of reasoning in general - moonshot projects have led to amazing discoveries in the past and should definitely be funded. In this particular case, though, there are both very, very strong arguments to suggest that we reached the peak of what the current paradigm can achieve back in the late 00's - as well as very, very strong (financial and cultural) pressure to ensure all new research projects in the field adhere to the current paradigm. >I get your frustration at the perceived support for a research direction you view as wrong, but I think this is normal, especially in emerging tech. It's so, so much deeper than that. The researchers in the area know full well what they're doing is complete bullshit, but toe the line anyway because that's where the funding comes from. It's not just a wrong research direction but a soft and invisible form of academic fraud. This is not normal (or at least shouldn't be normal), and we should not be feeding the beast. We could possibly have much, much stronger BCI tech today if the incumbent culture weren't actively impeding innovation.
        graderjs 5y ago
        Wow, man. Thanks for sharing more how you feel about it. I thought it was just equal competing approaches, different camps. But you tell a different story. I really appreciate that. That's not just fraud, I think...but it's like wasted scientific capacity. You know? They're researchers, they could be working to build something, but instead they're taking money on an approach that can't work. That's sick. Feels bad.... So what do you think's the solution? Like if you could take 10 million dollars to do your own lab with BCI tech what direction would you go in? ;p ;) xx
- grp000 5y ago
  I thought a lot of those videos worked off of nerve impulses at the terminated end of the limb.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    The guy with the robotic arm that looks like Bryan Cranston (can't remember his name off the top of my head) definitely uses nerve endings at the end of the limb. Others, such as the patient in Krishna Shenoy's 2017 paper, though, use invasive BCIs.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >I had the impression from seeing those videos of people operating robotic limbs through biofeedback or typing through biofeedback or the write-ups on that AI related work to determine words from brainwave patterns that a lot of this stuff was achieving impressive capabilities. Sticking to BCI specifically and not other forms for biofeedback, most of those demos you see come from people with invasive, penetrative electrode arrays such as the Utah array. In some people, these sensors can enable a high level of control and performance (not Xbox controller level, but still Atari controller level which would be incredibly useful for people with Motor Neurone Disease). Unfortunately the body rejects them after a few months and they're back to square one. To be honest with you, I don't think that the problem's intractable. Perhaps a clever materials engineer could develop a coating for the electrode arrays that the body accepts long-term and allows the user to train for years rather than months. Perhaps we could develop a new form of sensor altogether. I don't know specifically what the answer is, but it won't come from the current paradigm of "turn garbage data into non-garbage output through the power of Machine Learning somehow" that we've been stuck in for the better part of two decades. And unfortunately, projects adhering to that paradigm is where all of the funding (and people) goes to.
  - cinquemb 5y ago
    > "turn garbage data into non-garbage output through the power of Machine Learning somehow" Yeah, i was pretty turned off by this in the lab i've worked at/contracted for. A lot of support for this kind of stuff wrt EEF neurofeedback while ignoring the physics of what could be done with the raw data (if the PI actually understands or had a E&M class at least). Ppl in charge of getting the grants don't really care about the fact we do not gain any insight into whats going on when we use black box systems… oh well. I'd be happy to play around with biosemi 128 electrode cap+array + dsp + beamformers[0] and openemu[1] for two decades, deff not gonna happen in academia though. [0] https://github.com/cinquemb/LCMVBeamformer https://github.com/cinquemb/LCMVBeamformer [1] https://github.com/cinquemb/OpenEmu https://github.com/cinquemb/OpenEmu
  - kodah 5y ago
    I did cognitive neurotherapy after a series of TBIs. The therapy seemed to work on me, though, what I've heard is that it's hit and miss. Of course, there's always the chance that I'd have recovered that way anyway, but given the state my academics were in I doubt it. For reference, the machine I used employed a bike game that supported movement across the screen. I eventually could make the bike go faster as well as up and down, nearly on command. It focused on alpha, beta, and theta waves measured by diodes stuck to your scalp. Not sure if that narrows that down, but I'm curious to know your thoughts.
pyinstallwoes 5y ago
Yeah, but have you worked at the DARPA level?