[HN Gopher] Devices that connect brains to computers are increas...
___________________________________________________________________
Devices that connect brains to computers are increasingly
sophisticated
Author : alister
Score : 30 points
Date : 2024-01-09 14:45 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (undark.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (undark.org)
| mynameisnoone wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Become a hermit? You might not even be able to leave the
| hospital.
| standardly wrote:
| > 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?"
| Gigachad wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| There is zero way a system that is wired into the place where
| pain is translated won't be used for evil.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-10 23:00 UTC)