3 ms·

Dystopian applications are extremely impractical or impossible, this is a tool for neuroscience

by aspenmartin 8mo ago

pixl97 8mo ago
"This will never be used by bad guys" says the person immediately before their tools are used by bad guys.
- aspenmartin 8mo ago
  No, it's "this tool cannot be used by bad guys or good guys, but can be used by highly funded labs that do neuroscience". It's something that freaks people out until they gradually learn what is actually involved https://ai.meta.com/blog/brain-ai-image-decoding-meg-magnetoencephalography/ https://ai.meta.com/blog/brain-ai-image-decoding-meg-magneto... [2023] https://ai.meta.com/blog/brain-ai-research-human-communication/ https://ai.meta.com/blog/brain-ai-research-human-communicati... [last year, focuses on decoding text] ^ There's a research team at Meta that studies this. You need an MEG -- thats $2-5M + the shielded room it lives in and the experts that can operate it. EEG doesn't work due to low spatial resolution and how finicky it is to place the electrodes to get a good signal The signals from neurons are just unbelievably tiny and are in an absolute sea of noisy trash. No one is ever going to read your thoughts without your consent (or by wrestling you into a big MEG, in which case you have bigger things to worry about). No one is going to be reading your dreams with any sort of accuracy either.
  - mandolingual 8mo ago
    And computers used to fill a room and require stacks of punch cards to use.
    - aspenmartin 8mo ago
      in both cases: physics decides what's possible
      - r_klancer 8mo ago
        Well, well, then I have a paper for you (2014); https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computational-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fncom.2013.00137/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computational-neuroscie... You might be interested in author #7. Some guy named Dario something.
        aspenmartin 8mo ago
        That is indeed a paper lol. But in seriousness: not news and doesn’t change any of what I said. You have a class of 20 objects that they recall as they dream. Same setup (fMRI), small n, very very simplified design. Look the reason we can’t do this is both physics AND information theoretic. You are getting in the best case an EXTREMELY reduced dimensionality, it’s not as though this is an early days of AI thing where it’s like “it’s not possible today but there’s nothing in principle stopping us from a Kurzweil like world”. It’s just not really possible. Anyway the studies on this are restricted to specific neuroscience questions. Paper shows dreams contain object-like representations in the visual cortex — this is cool! And important! But it doesn’t imply anything for decoding thoughts and dreams.

Dystopian applications are extremely impractical or impossible, this is a tool for neuroscience

pixl97 8mo ago

"This will never be used by bad guys" says the person immediately before their tools are used by bad guys.

aspenmartin 8mo ago
No, it's "this tool cannot be used by bad guys or good guys, but can be used by highly funded labs that do neuroscience". It's something that freaks people out until they gradually learn what is actually involved https://ai.meta.com/blog/brain-ai-image-decoding-meg-magnetoencephalography/ https://ai.meta.com/blog/brain-ai-image-decoding-meg-magneto... [2023] https://ai.meta.com/blog/brain-ai-research-human-communication/ https://ai.meta.com/blog/brain-ai-research-human-communicati... [last year, focuses on decoding text] ^ There's a research team at Meta that studies this. You need an MEG -- thats $2-5M + the shielded room it lives in and the experts that can operate it. EEG doesn't work due to low spatial resolution and how finicky it is to place the electrodes to get a good signal The signals from neurons are just unbelievably tiny and are in an absolute sea of noisy trash. No one is ever going to read your thoughts without your consent (or by wrestling you into a big MEG, in which case you have bigger things to worry about). No one is going to be reading your dreams with any sort of accuracy either.
- mandolingual 8mo ago
  And computers used to fill a room and require stacks of punch cards to use.
  - aspenmartin 8mo ago
    in both cases: physics decides what's possible
    - r_klancer 8mo ago
      Well, well, then I have a paper for you (2014); https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computational-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fncom.2013.00137/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computational-neuroscie... You might be interested in author #7. Some guy named Dario something.
      - aspenmartin 8mo ago
        That is indeed a paper lol. But in seriousness: not news and doesn’t change any of what I said. You have a class of 20 objects that they recall as they dream. Same setup (fMRI), small n, very very simplified design. Look the reason we can’t do this is both physics AND information theoretic. You are getting in the best case an EXTREMELY reduced dimensionality, it’s not as though this is an early days of AI thing where it’s like “it’s not possible today but there’s nothing in principle stopping us from a Kurzweil like world”. It’s just not really possible. Anyway the studies on this are restricted to specific neuroscience questions. Paper shows dreams contain object-like representations in the visual cortex — this is cool! And important! But it doesn’t imply anything for decoding thoughts and dreams.