8 ms·
Artificial intelligence gave a paralyzed woman her voice back
- apaprocki 3y agoInteresting thought experiment… does the right to remain silent prevent a USB device from being placed on your head?
- vkou 3y agoYes, just like it prevents the prosecution from bringing in a psychic that will speak your thoughts to the court.
- sobkas 3y agoYes, just like it prevents the prosecution from bringing in a cop that will testify against you to the court. Yes, just like it prevents the prosecution from bringing in a hair expert that will testify to the court that your hair was on the crime scene. Yes, just like it prevents the prosecution from bringing in a blood splatter expert to testify to the court only you could make this specific splatter. As you can see, truth or efficacy isn't a prerequisite of being admitted by the court.
- vkou 3y agoThere's testimony about you, and there's your testimony. One is self-incriminating, the other isn't.
- JPLeRouzic 3y agoIn France it's common for the court to ask to a psychoanalyst or a psychologist (not to a psychic) to tell what the defendant was "really" thinking and feeling, in order to decide to decide whether the defendant was responsible for his actions or not. “There is no crime or offense when the defendant was in a state of insanity at the time of offense, or when he was constrained by a force he could not resist. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9387428/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9387428/
- lucubratory 3y agoThis is also possible (not "common", but possible and no one bats an eye as it happens multiple times a year) in America, it's called an insanity defense and it requires expert testimony by a psychologist.
- daveguy 3y agoThat is an interesting thought experiment. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure putting something on your head to essentially coerce information would be a violation of the right to remain silent. I don't know whether it would fall in the fingerprint vs spoken password space in terms of subject-to-search-warrant. Fortunately this tech is currently very person-specific and have to be trained to the person. So to thwart it you'd just have to think applesauce over and over.
- intrasight 3y agoI'm not sure that right will protect you. The right applies to "something you know" not "something you have". You have a brain. A good analogy is smartphone passwords. Authorities can't make you share your password (something you know), but they can make you unlock you phone with a fingerprint (something you have).
- birdyrooster 3y agoYou are forgetting "something you are"
- intrasight 3y agoI'm not familiar with any court rulings on that
- birdyrooster 3y agoWell, time to get more familiar because I need you to prove my point for me.
- bitdivision 3y agoThe 5th amendment protects you from being a witness against yourself [0]. So to me it seems pretty clear that in the US this would not be allowed. But then again, it seems as though being forced to reveal your password is not necessarily a violation of the 5th amendment [1]. I can't quite understand why the supreme court hasn't made a decision on this one yet. There are a lot of conflicting decisions now. 0: `nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself` 1: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/police-should-not-be-allowed-to-compel-our-cell-phone-passwords https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/police-should-n...
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoBut the third party doctrine lets the prosecution have all that sweet incriminating data once it's on someone else's server.
- bitdivision 3y agoAh but isn't the third party doctrine predicated on the data being voluntarily given to a third party? "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties." See Smith vs Maryland: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-third-party-doctrine/282721/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-...
- Jerrrry 3y agoThe thought process behind being compelled to provide a password is that you can be compelled to provide it to (indiscriminate) computer; which is currently thought of similarly to being summoned, as opposing this would be contempt of court or obstruction of justice. Forcing someone to do something without payment and to their own detriment should run afoul of both the 13th and 5th amendment respectively; but if it was already reasonably and obviously known that an encrypted drive contained CSAM or national security secrets, and you have already been duly convicted of that, then it would not apply ("except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," ), and you can be coerced into the "labor" of decryption - although double jeopardy would seem to apply, so you cannot be further charged for anything found, once decrypted. I suggest making your passwords themselves incriminating, just to throw in another constitutional hiccup. Not that any of this would matter in practice, but it is quite a legal thought experiment.
- StarterPro 3y agoCurrently, they can't compel you to give up your fingerprint, but can force a password. So I think thoughts would count as a biologic rather than a generated phrase in that aspect.
- LocalH 3y agoI think you have it backwards? In most jurisdictions I think biometrics can be forced but divulging knowledge cannot.
- PcChip 3y agoWasn't it trained to her brain specifically?
- swayvil 3y agoThis kind of brain-reading certainly seems to be in the same general species as lie detection. So it must exist. An AI device that takes a thousand data points off your brain and tells you lie or not. What would we do if we had a ~100% accurate lie detector? How would that go down, socially?
- causi 3y agoUnless someone figures out a way to do this without surgery from ten feet away the answer is that it won't.
- swayvil 3y agoYa I was thinking the same thing. Requiring a brain operation to make it work would be a deal breaker. Need an MRI or something.
- xwdv 3y agoIt would make trials much more straight forward events and allow us to deliver justice at scale, since we would now have a digital engine of truth.
- swayvil 3y agoAnd then we demand that all our police and lawmakers and public servants get hooked up to the machine and then the next day it's illegal tech.
- userbinator 3y agosince we would now have a digital engine of truth. What are we living in, a dystopian sci-fi universe?
- Vecr 3y agoIf that's the sensitivity, what's the specificity? How well does it translate from the population it's trained on to other populations? In what contexts is the type of lying it detects useful to detect? I would assume using it on someone in a criminal investigation context without their permission would be a 5th and 6th amendment violation (as it would almost entirely subvert the usefulness of legal representation).
- padolsey 3y ago> Rather than train the AI to recognize whole words, the researchers created a system that decodes words from smaller components called phonemes. These are the sub-units of speech that form spoken words in the same way that letters form written words. “Hello,” for example, contains four phonemes: “HH,” “AH,” “L” and “OW.” This is nifty. Also I'm oddly comforted by the fact that this system doesn't "read thoughts". It just maps slightly upstream from actual speech to the relevant speech/motor production regions of the brain. So no immediate concern for thought hacking... Separately, this makes me wonder what such a system would be for deaf people (with signing ability) who have lost their ability to move their arms. I imagine–optimistically–that one could just attach the electrodes to a slightly different area in the motor cortex and then once again train an AI to decode intent to signs (and speech). So basically the same system?
- idiotsecant 3y agoI think not all deaf people have the same mapping of words and their precise phoneme to the typical expected muscle movements. If this mapping differed from a regular person this system would not be that useful on the interpreting speech side. I think we've had pretty good gesture recognition for a while, on the other hand. I bet it's possible to decode individual signs right now but sign language also has a different grammar from typical spoken English and a lot of meaning is context based so it might be tricky in that way, more of a translation problem.
- padolsey 3y agoOh yeh definitely. I meant more specifically: might it be possible to capture the electrical signals (much like this current system) from the parts of the motor cortex that create the series of muscle movements that form a 'sign', and then creating a 2d projection/display of these muscle movements and then ... downstream, a gesture recognition solution as u mention (a big downstream challenge). It sounds like a lot. Was just a thought experiment of how such spinal blocks/paralysis would affect deaf people and how they'd be able to continue to communicate with their deaf partners. Definitely niche but nonetheless interesting, and I think possible using the same general approach as the OP article. But yeh to then translate gestures to speech is a distinct and incredibly challenging problem on its own as you allude to. Perhaps in the future they can tap into signing/speaking-translators' brains and have AI learn those mappings in a fuzzy way.
- cf100clunk 3y agoThe woman from the title is from Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, and the CBC did a feature on her story. Her husband is pictured at her side in a Saskatchewan Roughriders tee shirt and Toronto Blue Jays ball cap, having dressed with his Canuckness set to 11: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/paralysis-brain-speech-1.6943743 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/paralysis-brain-speech-1.6943... My hope is that she'll be able to cheer on their teams.
- etrautmann 3y agoA similar study came out, also in Nature on the same day from a team at Stanford: paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06377-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06377-x one press writeup: https://spectrum.ieee.org/brain-implant-speech https://spectrum.ieee.org/brain-implant-speech
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago[flagged]
- artninja1988 3y agoTo me, you need help then
- FollowingTheDao 3y agoDid you miss the point? They are trying to cover up the bad of AI with some little feel good story.
- c7DJTLrn 3y agoI noticed that she selects characters by using her glasses as a pointing device and moving her head. Surely they could use an eye tracking device like Tobii instead?
- jrootabega 3y agoMaybe there is some medical reason not to for her. But as a healthy user of head tracking for gaming, I would rather have head tracking, so I can move my eyes without interacting with the screen. Maybe it also doesn't work well with multiple people watching?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- danuker 3y agoAlso, instead of the button interface, she should check out Dasher text input: http://www.inference.org.uk/dasher/ http://www.inference.org.uk/dasher/
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- egoregorov 3y ago[flagged]
- flagrant_taco 3y agoNot quite sure what I missed here, how is this AI rather than machine learning?
- fennecbutt 3y ago"The BRAVO3 team recreated Ann’s voice using language learning AI, and footage of Ann’s laugh-inducing wedding speech from 2005." Gonna admit that this idea brought tears to my eyes, it's just the icing on the cake, really. And such a heartfelt decision. Unfortunately in practice the voice still sounds quite robotic. Perhaps they could ask elevenlabs for help?