4 ms·

Hot take: The metaverse will take off when bi-directional BCI takes off. I also think the smart players are trying to stake claims right now with in the softw

Hot take: The metaverse will take off when bi-directional BCI takes off. I also think the smart players are trying to stake claims right now with in the software landscape, and keep holding on until HW improves, at least I hope no one actually thinks the current head mounted display system is the way forward! I'd look at HMD VR as the equivalent of black and white resistive screen Palm Pilots that communicate with IR. The foundational ideas are there, but smartphones were the revolution.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
Totally agree that we are decades away from either.
- com2kid 4y ago
  Based on the news coming out about them lately, Neuralink seems like a lost opportunity to accelerate progress in this space. A ton of money was dropped into improving HMDs, and a lot of improvements to surrounding technical fields got made, it is sort of unfortunate that physics fundamentally limits what can be done there. If a similar investment had been made in BCI over 10 years, I suspect we'd be halfway to success. However it is important that there are multiple companies dumping money into R&D, so that the best methodology wins. Even in HMDs, different devices learned from each other and everyone benefitted. Of course implantable BCIs have more ethics concerns, and that likely is why the big tech companies didn't even try. But the first company to get consumer level bi-directional BCI onto the market is going to become the largest tech company ever, orders of magnitude larger than anything we see today. Based on your job, I'm guessing you are also sad that we've reached a local maxima regarding input devices! If machines were designed from scratch now days, meaning everyone had no prior expectations of keyboards/mice/touch/etc, I suspect we'd do everything very differently.
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    Neuralink wasn't a lost opportunity because it wasn't a possible opportunity in the first place. We are so far off from BCI input to the brain it's actually laughable. I'm willing to bet well over 60-80 years away Output is also a joke but a far easier problem to solve.
    - com2kid 4y ago
      > We are so far off from BCI input to the brain it's actually laughable. I'm willing to bet well over 60-80 years away Progress depends on discoveries in surrounding fields having already been made, and on resources invested. To an extent, you can help spur surrounding fields with lots of $, but it seemingly isn't possible to force brilliant theoretical breakthroughs. We have direct input for audio (cochlear implants) that needs iterating on, what needs tons of investment is visual. Figuring out how do to research in a humane fashion, that'll be the tricky part, and it isn't something corporations have a good history of.
pelorat 4y ago
That's going to happen only when you have a million nanowires worming themselves throughout your brain. Of course you can't insert that many, so it will need to be a device capable of self-assembly.
- RajT88 4y ago
  You've just predicted a sci-fi dystopia featuring actual brain worms. Thanks, I hate it.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Don't worry, nobody would want the massive extra complexity to make them self-sustaining. They'll all lead back to the same implanted surface and if anything starts to go wrong you can unplug it. And it would be the opposite of contagious.
- com2kid 4y ago
  You need a feed into the visual cortex and then some form of input. Full immersion? Yeah, centuries away maybe, but that isn't needed for a revolution. Scientists never perfected smell o vision, but cinema still changed the world!
whatsabcianyway 4y ago
I think this as well - putting the proverbial 'money where my mouth is' by starting a company around it [0]. The signals one can get from a 'BCI' are quite magical. BCI is in quotes, because I, like CTRL-Labs, base the term loosely around non-obvious control to bystanders around you (no vocalization, no obvious hand movements, etc). Extending the idea here: but much of the world is context based. Kitchens house a few main functions across cultures - where I would bet money that on a 'invocation count' metric for GoogleHome/Siri, the highest ranked function is the simple timer. If BCI companies finally got this around their heads (yes), then the skies clear. That's what we think, and what we prove with some pretty insane results. The common refrain from experts in the field is 'well your metric is only one bit' - and to that I say, 'well, yes, but it's the key to acting within the context.' There's a lot of ink I could spill about this; but I'm excited by everyone getting it so wrong. It just proves with time we will get this right. The only sad part is I have no idea how it truly turns into the empire that is the personal computer distribution model through AppStores. But honestly, I don't care - the user stories are gobsmacking. And to add to your hot take, here's a bit more: AR won't be glasses or contacts. It will be DynamicLands + Interactive Projection Mappings of the world. Wearing your compute will be seen like mainframes with mini wheels - oh cute, but I think you're missing the point. [0] An old demo of the first embodiments of this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbJl_xiDFU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbJl_xiDFU

dr_dshiv 4y ago

Totally agree that we are decades away from either.

com2kid 4y ago
Based on the news coming out about them lately, Neuralink seems like a lost opportunity to accelerate progress in this space. A ton of money was dropped into improving HMDs, and a lot of improvements to surrounding technical fields got made, it is sort of unfortunate that physics fundamentally limits what can be done there. If a similar investment had been made in BCI over 10 years, I suspect we'd be halfway to success. However it is important that there are multiple companies dumping money into R&D, so that the best methodology wins. Even in HMDs, different devices learned from each other and everyone benefitted. Of course implantable BCIs have more ethics concerns, and that likely is why the big tech companies didn't even try. But the first company to get consumer level bi-directional BCI onto the market is going to become the largest tech company ever, orders of magnitude larger than anything we see today. Based on your job, I'm guessing you are also sad that we've reached a local maxima regarding input devices! If machines were designed from scratch now days, meaning everyone had no prior expectations of keyboards/mice/touch/etc, I suspect we'd do everything very differently.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Neuralink wasn't a lost opportunity because it wasn't a possible opportunity in the first place. We are so far off from BCI input to the brain it's actually laughable. I'm willing to bet well over 60-80 years away Output is also a joke but a far easier problem to solve.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    > We are so far off from BCI input to the brain it's actually laughable. I'm willing to bet well over 60-80 years away Progress depends on discoveries in surrounding fields having already been made, and on resources invested. To an extent, you can help spur surrounding fields with lots of $, but it seemingly isn't possible to force brilliant theoretical breakthroughs. We have direct input for audio (cochlear implants) that needs iterating on, what needs tons of investment is visual. Figuring out how do to research in a humane fashion, that'll be the tricky part, and it isn't something corporations have a good history of.

pelorat 4y ago

That's going to happen only when you have a million nanowires worming themselves throughout your brain. Of course you can't insert that many, so it will need to be a device capable of self-assembly.

RajT88 4y ago
You've just predicted a sci-fi dystopia featuring actual brain worms. Thanks, I hate it.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Don't worry, nobody would want the massive extra complexity to make them self-sustaining. They'll all lead back to the same implanted surface and if anything starts to go wrong you can unplug it. And it would be the opposite of contagious.
com2kid 4y ago
You need a feed into the visual cortex and then some form of input. Full immersion? Yeah, centuries away maybe, but that isn't needed for a revolution. Scientists never perfected smell o vision, but cinema still changed the world!

whatsabcianyway 4y ago

I think this as well - putting the proverbial 'money where my mouth is' by starting a company around it [0]. The signals one can get from a 'BCI' are quite magical. BCI is in quotes, because I, like CTRL-Labs, base the term loosely around non-obvious control to bystanders around you (no vocalization, no obvious hand movements, etc). Extending the idea here: but much of the world is context based. Kitchens house a few main functions across cultures - where I would bet money that on a 'invocation count' metric for GoogleHome/Siri, the highest ranked function is the simple timer. If BCI companies finally got this around their heads (yes), then the skies clear. That's what we think, and what we prove with some pretty insane results. The common refrain from experts in the field is 'well your metric is only one bit' - and to that I say, 'well, yes, but it's the key to acting within the context.' There's a lot of ink I could spill about this; but I'm excited by everyone getting it so wrong. It just proves with time we will get this right. The only sad part is I have no idea how it truly turns into the empire that is the personal computer distribution model through AppStores. But honestly, I don't care - the user stories are gobsmacking. And to add to your hot take, here's a bit more: AR won't be glasses or contacts. It will be DynamicLands + Interactive Projection Mappings of the world. Wearing your compute will be seen like mainframes with mini wheels - oh cute, but I think you're missing the point. [0] An old demo of the first embodiments of this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbJl_xiDFU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbJl_xiDFU