6 ms·

Devices that connect brains to computers are increasingly sophisticated

72 points by alister 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mynameisnoone 3y ago
There are at least 2 PhD EE teams interested in developing and implanting 1k's-10k's of MEMS IR sensors with an option to add electrical or light stimulation for a complete cybernetic brain interface.
caycep 3y ago
1) Huth lab and Gallant lab are extremely highly regarding in fMRI encoding/decoding, plus their code and models are released as open source; much admiration for that. There were some follow up studies to the visual decoding thing which is getting more sophisticated w/ diffusion models and other ML techniques improving the accuracy of semantic and visual coding - I think a few were presented at NEURIPS this year spooky thought - using the output from a Huth-style semantic decoder into the Eddie Chang-lab/UCSF vocal synthesizer? 2) I would say, the neuroethical part of things is growing in importance. What's available in the lab still is way more sophisticated than the devices out in the field - DBS, rTMS, ambulatory EEG, but it's worth having that discussion. 3) Given the above - almost a decade after Obama BRAIN - the lab demonstrations are getting better and better...but none of them have joined DBS, rTMS, ambulatory EEG as something in routine use - i.e. I cannot order an fMRI decoder on a patient in any practical shape or form, or get it covered by Medicare....
- mchusma 3y ago
  Thanks for the context! I found the article a bit puzzling as it made the researchers seem almost panicked about the neuroethical part. This was either: (1) a journalistic technique (2) the capabilities are progressing far faster here than I have seen, and the article didn't really do a good job of going into it. I would like it to be based on real progress, but I don't think the article really described the recent progress well.
whalesalad 3y ago
No way in hell I would ever install a computer in my body, not even a pacemaker. I would rather shrivel up and return to nature than get rekt by a hardware/software mistake.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  "I'd rather die for sure than risk being killed by a malfunction in a pacemaker" seems like a rather bizarre positon. I completely understand (and share) not wanting elective brain surgery for cybernetic implants of this kind, but a pacemaker is a very simple choice: if you need one, you either have it installed or you die. Sure, it might malfunction and kill you, but that's still better than 100% chance of death, isn't it?
  - whalesalad 3y ago
    Honestly no. If my doc came to me and said, only option is a pace maker. I would probably just become a hermit and literally die.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      Become a hermit? You might not even be able to leave the hospital.
      - whalesalad 3y ago
        DNR :peace:
    - bastawhiz 3y ago
      I feel a great deal of sympathy for your loved ones. They'll either watch you decline care that will extend your life from ~hours to a normal lifespan, or at the other end of the spectrum they'll watch you live out an incredibly uncomfortable and tortured few months (if you're lucky). I hope you have a will.
      - 3y ago
standardly 3y ago
> spend decades deliberately developing mind-reading computer technology > mind-reading computer technology finally works > "oh no, it actually works - wait, isn't this bad? think of all the ethical implications! what have we done?"
- LeftHandPath 3y ago
  We're cursed by our own creativity. The tech has a handful of positive use-cases, and a seemingly infinite number of nightmarish abuses that even its inventors are terrified of. But they will continue to develop the tech, or someone else will in their place. It's a huge, exciting, valuable advancement that could change the history of our species - not exactly the sort of thing anyone would want to just walk away from. It's not the most dangerous thing that man has ever built, but it is dangerous, and it's probably the most uncomfortably personal. The following was encouraging: > In late 2021, the scientists began to run new experiments. First, they were curious if an algorithm trained on one person could be used on another. They found that it could not — the decoder’s efficacy depended on many hours of individualized training. Next, they tested whether the decoder could be thrown off simply by refusing to cooperate with it. Instead of focusing on the story that was playing through their headphones while inside the fMRI machine, participants were asked to complete other mental tasks, such as naming random animals, or telling a different story in their head. “Both of those rendered it completely unusable,” Huth said. “We didn’t decode the story they were listening to, and we couldn’t decode anything about what they were thinking either.”
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    Thank God for your last quote. The nightmare of the police or whatever reading even what you don't think about would be total. Hopefully they will not find a way to make it work on uncooperative persons any time soon.
    - jamiek88 3y ago
      The nightmare situation is them using it and claiming it works with the 'correct interpretation' and that being admissible in court whether or not it does work. We dodged a bullet with the 'polygraph' but times have changed and I could see something like that being accepted. We already have 'fire forensics/arson investigation' which is complete bullshit and just so pseudoscience as well as a lot of other bullshit science around forensics and DNA and questionable 'experts'. That coupled with the unreliability of witness statements, the bullshit around sniffer dogs and it's a wonder there are any guilty people in prison at all.
Gigachad 3y ago
The ethics of this seem awful. If the tech actually works, it's almost certain that governments will start using it to force information out of people.
- Loughla 3y ago
  There is zero way a system that is wired into the place where pain is translated won't be used for evil.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  How could it be used to force information out of people? Sounds like it can be used to eavesdrop on the part of the brain that decodes hearing. At best.
  - kypro 3y ago
    Fairly easily... We could do a lot of this now if we wanted. Lie detectors can kinda be used to know what someone is thinking, but requires cooperation since the subject still needs to say whether something is false / truthful. If we could tap into someone's brain then we could simply ask a question and find out if they're recalling an event from memory, or whether a statement like "do you know where she is" is truthful. More advanced modelling of someones brain activity can even pick out specific thoughts so there's various ways to extract information from people as this technology progresses. Although my guess is that none of this is required. An advanced AI model could probably learn your to understand your subconscious muscle / eye movements well enough to extract information without anything more invasive. For example: 1. "Do you know where she is" – AI says he's thinking yes 2. "Is she in the US?" – AI says he's thinking yes 3. "Is she in Texas" – AI says he's thinking yes And so on until you have the information you need.
    - Cyphase 3y ago
      That questioning methodology reminds me of Daemon/Freedom(TM): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(novel)
Avshalom 3y ago
It'd be fucking weird if they were decreasingly sophisticated.
kenRockm4n 3y ago
[dead]
Animats 3y ago
It's amazing how much information can be extracted from functional MRI data. That's like figuring out what a chip is doing by looking at which parts are using warmer because they're using more power.
elefanten 3y ago
So how does one invest in actual god damn “tin foil” hats? That oughta hold off the brain parsers for a while.
crotchfire 3y ago
Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
- crotchfire 3y ago
  https://archive.ph/Wb046 https://archive.ph/Wb046

72 points by alister 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

There are at least 2 PhD EE teams interested in developing and implanting 1k's-10k's of MEMS IR sensors with an option to add electrical or light stimulation for a complete cybernetic brain interface.

caycep 3y ago

1) Huth lab and Gallant lab are extremely highly regarding in fMRI encoding/decoding, plus their code and models are released as open source; much admiration for that. There were some follow up studies to the visual decoding thing which is getting more sophisticated w/ diffusion models and other ML techniques improving the accuracy of semantic and visual coding - I think a few were presented at NEURIPS this year spooky thought - using the output from a Huth-style semantic decoder into the Eddie Chang-lab/UCSF vocal synthesizer? 2) I would say, the neuroethical part of things is growing in importance. What's available in the lab still is way more sophisticated than the devices out in the field - DBS, rTMS, ambulatory EEG, but it's worth having that discussion. 3) Given the above - almost a decade after Obama BRAIN - the lab demonstrations are getting better and better...but none of them have joined DBS, rTMS, ambulatory EEG as something in routine use - i.e. I cannot order an fMRI decoder on a patient in any practical shape or form, or get it covered by Medicare....

mchusma 3y ago
Thanks for the context! I found the article a bit puzzling as it made the researchers seem almost panicked about the neuroethical part. This was either: (1) a journalistic technique (2) the capabilities are progressing far faster here than I have seen, and the article didn't really do a good job of going into it. I would like it to be based on real progress, but I don't think the article really described the recent progress well.

whalesalad 3y ago

No way in hell I would ever install a computer in my body, not even a pacemaker. I would rather shrivel up and return to nature than get rekt by a hardware/software mistake.

tsimionescu 3y ago
"I'd rather die for sure than risk being killed by a malfunction in a pacemaker" seems like a rather bizarre positon. I completely understand (and share) not wanting elective brain surgery for cybernetic implants of this kind, but a pacemaker is a very simple choice: if you need one, you either have it installed or you die. Sure, it might malfunction and kill you, but that's still better than 100% chance of death, isn't it?
- whalesalad 3y ago
  Honestly no. If my doc came to me and said, only option is a pace maker. I would probably just become a hermit and literally die.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    Become a hermit? You might not even be able to leave the hospital.
    - whalesalad 3y ago
      DNR :peace:
  - bastawhiz 3y ago
    I feel a great deal of sympathy for your loved ones. They'll either watch you decline care that will extend your life from ~hours to a normal lifespan, or at the other end of the spectrum they'll watch you live out an incredibly uncomfortable and tortured few months (if you're lucky). I hope you have a will.
    - 3y ago

standardly 3y ago

> spend decades deliberately developing mind-reading computer technology > mind-reading computer technology finally works > "oh no, it actually works - wait, isn't this bad? think of all the ethical implications! what have we done?"

LeftHandPath 3y ago
We're cursed by our own creativity. The tech has a handful of positive use-cases, and a seemingly infinite number of nightmarish abuses that even its inventors are terrified of. But they will continue to develop the tech, or someone else will in their place. It's a huge, exciting, valuable advancement that could change the history of our species - not exactly the sort of thing anyone would want to just walk away from. It's not the most dangerous thing that man has ever built, but it is dangerous, and it's probably the most uncomfortably personal. The following was encouraging: > In late 2021, the scientists began to run new experiments. First, they were curious if an algorithm trained on one person could be used on another. They found that it could not — the decoder’s efficacy depended on many hours of individualized training. Next, they tested whether the decoder could be thrown off simply by refusing to cooperate with it. Instead of focusing on the story that was playing through their headphones while inside the fMRI machine, participants were asked to complete other mental tasks, such as naming random animals, or telling a different story in their head. “Both of those rendered it completely unusable,” Huth said. “We didn’t decode the story they were listening to, and we couldn’t decode anything about what they were thinking either.”
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Thank God for your last quote. The nightmare of the police or whatever reading even what you don't think about would be total. Hopefully they will not find a way to make it work on uncooperative persons any time soon.
  - jamiek88 3y ago
    The nightmare situation is them using it and claiming it works with the 'correct interpretation' and that being admissible in court whether or not it does work. We dodged a bullet with the 'polygraph' but times have changed and I could see something like that being accepted. We already have 'fire forensics/arson investigation' which is complete bullshit and just so pseudoscience as well as a lot of other bullshit science around forensics and DNA and questionable 'experts'. That coupled with the unreliability of witness statements, the bullshit around sniffer dogs and it's a wonder there are any guilty people in prison at all.

Gigachad 3y ago

The ethics of this seem awful. If the tech actually works, it's almost certain that governments will start using it to force information out of people.

Loughla 3y ago
There is zero way a system that is wired into the place where pain is translated won't be used for evil.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
How could it be used to force information out of people? Sounds like it can be used to eavesdrop on the part of the brain that decodes hearing. At best.
- kypro 3y ago
  Fairly easily... We could do a lot of this now if we wanted. Lie detectors can kinda be used to know what someone is thinking, but requires cooperation since the subject still needs to say whether something is false / truthful. If we could tap into someone's brain then we could simply ask a question and find out if they're recalling an event from memory, or whether a statement like "do you know where she is" is truthful. More advanced modelling of someones brain activity can even pick out specific thoughts so there's various ways to extract information from people as this technology progresses. Although my guess is that none of this is required. An advanced AI model could probably learn your to understand your subconscious muscle / eye movements well enough to extract information without anything more invasive. For example: 1. "Do you know where she is" – AI says he's thinking yes 2. "Is she in the US?" – AI says he's thinking yes 3. "Is she in Texas" – AI says he's thinking yes And so on until you have the information you need.
  - Cyphase 3y ago
    That questioning methodology reminds me of Daemon/Freedom(TM): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(novel)

Avshalom 3y ago

It'd be fucking weird if they were decreasingly sophisticated.

kenRockm4n 3y ago

[dead]

Animats 3y ago

It's amazing how much information can be extracted from functional MRI data. That's like figuring out what a chip is doing by looking at which parts are using warmer because they're using more power.

elefanten 3y ago

So how does one invest in actual god damn “tin foil” hats? That oughta hold off the brain parsers for a while.

crotchfire 3y ago

Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue

crotchfire 3y ago
https://archive.ph/Wb046 https://archive.ph/Wb046