4 ms·

I would imagine some of those videos are the hype and misinformation that the GP is talking about

by dexwiz 5y ago

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
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        >Like if you could take 10 million dollars to do your own lab with BCI tech what direction would you go in? The honest truth is I have no idea exactly how to solve the problem. I'm a data/algorithms guy, and our skills are completely inapplicable to this field at this time. My original thesis suggested we "somehow" work out how to train humans to produce signals that can be more easily distinguished by a BCI, but I had no idea where to even begin with such a system. A mainstream BCI will require a better understanding both how the brain works and what materials can survive inside and coexist with the human body. Or perhaps a new sensor method will come along that greatly increases the quality of the data we have and render both of those things obsolete. I think the best way of spending my 10 million would involve simply giving it to smart, frugal people and walking away without asking any questions. I mean that genuinely.

I would imagine some of those videos are the hype and misinformation that the GP is talking about

by dexwiz 5y ago

I would imagine some of those videos are the hype and misinformation that the GP is talking about

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
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      >Like if you could take 10 million dollars to do your own lab with BCI tech what direction would you go in? The honest truth is I have no idea exactly how to solve the problem. I'm a data/algorithms guy, and our skills are completely inapplicable to this field at this time. My original thesis suggested we "somehow" work out how to train humans to produce signals that can be more easily distinguished by a BCI, but I had no idea where to even begin with such a system. A mainstream BCI will require a better understanding both how the brain works and what materials can survive inside and coexist with the human body. Or perhaps a new sensor method will come along that greatly increases the quality of the data we have and render both of those things obsolete. I think the best way of spending my 10 million would involve simply giving it to smart, frugal people and walking away without asking any questions. I mean that genuinely.