Neuralink Live Stream [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Neuralink Live Stream [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vbh3t7WVI
302 comments
> Looks like their main technology is the surgery robot and the custom chips
They're also building up a software stack to analyze the sensor output, complete with a user-facing smartphone app.
They're also building up a software stack to analyze the sensor output, complete with a user-facing smartphone app.
If you're interested in reading more about Neuralink, I highly recommend this article: https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html
It's a long read, but fascinating. The analogy of comparing the brain to a stadium of people cheering made it really easy to understand Neuralink's aims.
It's a long read, but fascinating. The analogy of comparing the brain to a stadium of people cheering made it really easy to understand Neuralink's aims.
He is great, but how to put it politely? His enthusiasm for technology and future possibilities blinds him to the reality that many things take longer than what we would wish , and that science requires lot of sluggish, dull work in order to advance.
While this is true, one thing that has changed a lot is how connected all the research labs of the world are across the planet and how that rate is increasing. While it creates a lot of chaos, distraction and trust issues to work through, the scope and scale of collaboration is on the rise which means a lot of work is getting parallelized.
Think of it as a shift from single core to multicore. Dull stuff is going to happen faster than it used too.
It takes time to adjust to hyperconnection. But the benefits will keep showing up and pushing things in the direction of more connection. Look at the number of collaborators on the Black Hole image or gravitational wave detection. You will see things like that increase. And as they increase we learn how to do things better.
He mentioned that it’d be slow and there’s a LOT of work to finish in the announcement. He’s (now) aware of the challenges.
I was referring to the guy who wrote the post, I think you are referring to Ellon . I think he is more grounded being closer to the "action".
Oh god, that web page is in the format of a ranting crazy person. Is there a quicker explanation somewhere?
My idea of ranting crazy person's website doesn't have facebook share buttons and a popup asking me to subscribe to a newsletter. For reference, here are my ideas of a crazy person's website:
http://timecube.2enp.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20171002152147/http://templeos.o...
https://web.archive.org/web/20180404034756/http://nasimabc.c...
http://timecube.2enp.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20171002152147/http://templeos.o...
https://web.archive.org/web/20180404034756/http://nasimabc.c...
Those are crazy 1.0. Crazy 2.0 has a newsletter, and Social.
To be fair, waitbutwhy's newsletter isn't spam, it only send about one email per year when new articles are published. As publications are so infrequent, that's a good way not to forget about this blog
That web page is actually a really good read.
Maybe. But the first part with the Jellyfish and the frog and all that evolutionary crap turned me off. Too much of it is written in the Explain Like I'm 5 format.
>The analogy of comparing the brain to a stadium of people cheering made it really easy to understand Neuralink's aims.
The problem we have is that we have no idea about the language they are speaking.
The problem we have is that we have no idea about the language they are speaking.
Looks like Bloomberg just posted their pre-written article on accident:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-17/elon-musk...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-17/elon-musk...
>“We will painlessly laser-drill the holes into the skull, place the threads, plug the hole with the sensor, and then you go home,” he says. “It’ll basically be an experience like getting Lasik.”
Maybe I've read a bit too much cyberpunk lore in my day, but this sounds incredibly ambitious. Can't wait for the livestream to start!
Maybe I've read a bit too much cyberpunk lore in my day, but this sounds incredibly ambitious. Can't wait for the livestream to start!
As someone who had a magnet inserted and eventually removed from a finger: wait for the 2nd or 3rd revision.
The first versions of the magnet implants had an unnerving tendency to shatter or have their neutral coating breach. And we're talking about the brain here - any damage caused by implanted devices may not be nearly as obvious as an exploded finger. I never miss an opportunity to trot out this quote from Alpha Centauri:
>I think, and my thoughts cross the barrier into the synapses of the machine - just as the good doctor intended. But what I cannot shake, and what hints at things to come, is that thoughts cross back. In my dreams the sensibility of the machine invades the periphery of my consciousness. Dark. Rigid. Cold. Alien. Evolution is at work here, but just what is evolving remains to be seen.
The first versions of the magnet implants had an unnerving tendency to shatter or have their neutral coating breach. And we're talking about the brain here - any damage caused by implanted devices may not be nearly as obvious as an exploded finger. I never miss an opportunity to trot out this quote from Alpha Centauri:
>I think, and my thoughts cross the barrier into the synapses of the machine - just as the good doctor intended. But what I cannot shake, and what hints at things to come, is that thoughts cross back. In my dreams the sensibility of the machine invades the periphery of my consciousness. Dark. Rigid. Cold. Alien. Evolution is at work here, but just what is evolving remains to be seen.
If I think about how omnipresent computers and data are in my life now, I wonder how much we can use that as a starting point for what some of that evolution might look like.
For example...
- I find myself trying to memorize fewer things if I can easily reference them digitally later
- My expectations for having answers at my fingertips has grown such that not having internet or cell service causes anxiety
- My communication is increasingly in a pure visual format, condensing complex ideas, concepts, emotions etc. to a pic or gif. Further, my concept of a photo has bifurcated into more permanent photos I care about, and more ephemeral "pics" that get forgotten about. TBD whether I'd say my overall communication throughout speed has increased
- Phantom phone vibrations when I don't have my device on me
- Shortened attention span due to the wealth of data immediately available, but also many notifications vying for my attention
- A tendency to avoid situations where I'd be without electricity long term
- The ability to enjoy virtual experiences in a way that delivers some of the enjoyment of in-person experiences (think socializing in online games)
For example...
- I find myself trying to memorize fewer things if I can easily reference them digitally later
- My expectations for having answers at my fingertips has grown such that not having internet or cell service causes anxiety
- My communication is increasingly in a pure visual format, condensing complex ideas, concepts, emotions etc. to a pic or gif. Further, my concept of a photo has bifurcated into more permanent photos I care about, and more ephemeral "pics" that get forgotten about. TBD whether I'd say my overall communication throughout speed has increased
- Phantom phone vibrations when I don't have my device on me
- Shortened attention span due to the wealth of data immediately available, but also many notifications vying for my attention
- A tendency to avoid situations where I'd be without electricity long term
- The ability to enjoy virtual experiences in a way that delivers some of the enjoyment of in-person experiences (think socializing in online games)
Maybe a composite ring with a magnet in it might have a larger market. In the same way ctrl-labs might give you an early-adopter heads-up (although it would be one-way communication)
Simple and painless operation does not mean operation without risks. Even small microsurgery into the brain has infection risk. If successful, Neurallink will be used only for patients in cases where benefits outweigh the risks.
You can start thinking about brain augmentation for non-medical reasons after the technology has been used for decade or so and all the side effects and risks have been minimized.
You can start thinking about brain augmentation for non-medical reasons after the technology has been used for decade or so and all the side effects and risks have been minimized.
Their machine is really impressive. I think for a medical device a needle has a great advantage from the safety perspective. You can make a needle that will never penetrate too deep into the brain because it is physically too short. Not so much for a laser capable of burning through skin which, if there is a bug in the controller would burn through the soft tissue in a matter of seconds.
> A wire attached to a USB-C port in its head transmitted its thoughts to a nearby computer
Any speculation around why USB-C was used? Or why this was a detail Neuralink wanted to message on?
Any speculation around why USB-C was used? Or why this was a detail Neuralink wanted to message on?
Because it's a buzzword that people know and Musk wants normal people to feel like they understand what he's doing.
Why pay extra for a special purpose cable to plug your skull into the matrix when you can just get a 99 cent one off Alibaba?
One reason I can think of: a 99 cent one off of alibaba might deliver a 100 volt jolt directly to a device that is electrically connected to your brain, killing you instantly.
I'm all for universal standards, but this really does seem like a case where the connection should be a clean sheet (maybe even proprietary) design where safety parameters can be tightly controlled. My guess is that they're using USB during the development phase for ease of development (they probably just haven't spent the time on making a different connector yet). I would be very surprised to see this actually go to market with a USB-C port. Given the notorious issues with USB-C cables, I would be surprised if the FDA even approved a device with a user-accessible USB-C port.
I'm all for universal standards, but this really does seem like a case where the connection should be a clean sheet (maybe even proprietary) design where safety parameters can be tightly controlled. My guess is that they're using USB during the development phase for ease of development (they probably just haven't spent the time on making a different connector yet). I would be very surprised to see this actually go to market with a USB-C port. Given the notorious issues with USB-C cables, I would be surprised if the FDA even approved a device with a user-accessible USB-C port.
Researchers typically use what's easily available, cheap and well understood. Back in the day it was serial connectors. It's just a bog-standard connector.
A mature product may well use a proprietary connector that isolates against brain-zapping, has better shielding, has no snap-off parts, etc.
A mature product may well use a proprietary connector that isolates against brain-zapping, has better shielding, has no snap-off parts, etc.
Full speed USB-C allows for high-bandwidth and easy to plug in. It's a pretty good connector if you don't need severe weather resistance.
Using off the shelf hardware saves time for the scientists to develop more meaningful parts of the system.
Using off the shelf hardware makes it seem a little less hacky than if they were running a bunch of jumper wires off a DB-25 connector from an old printer.
Using off the shelf hardware saves time for the scientists to develop more meaningful parts of the system.
Using off the shelf hardware makes it seem a little less hacky than if they were running a bunch of jumper wires off a DB-25 connector from an old printer.
You can plug it in either way around so it's easy to insert? /s
Show that it is easily programmable and hackable by end users, like an Arduino.
Arduino can process USB now? I remember back then atmega chips could not handle a usb driver due to clock speed.
Arduino Uno has had native USB support since 2010. It's not USB3, of course.
[deleted]
By accident, not "on accident":
https://writingexplained.org/on-accident-or-by-accident
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=by+accident%2C...
https://writingexplained.org/on-accident-or-by-accident
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=by+accident%2C...
Irregardless of your wishes, language evolves. Parts of the US use "on".
I'm aware. The first link I gave says as much.
However while it's accepted in regional spoken US English, it's not accepted in written English, even US English.
As for evolution, language does indeed evolve but only when changes are accepted by a significant number of speakers. No matter how much you wish it, you can't simply start forcing a linguistic change on society without society agreeing. If you start to spell "agree" as "agrii" for example, nearly all English speakers will (rightly) tell you that you're wrong, you can't just respond to them with "language evolves". "On accident" is still rare enough that we have a choice to reject it and that's the choice I'm making.
Also, remember that there are non-Americans on this site (I'm one of them). To us, this is simply incorrect. We don't have exposure to this kind of US English in most of the American media we consume (TV, movies etc.).
However while it's accepted in regional spoken US English, it's not accepted in written English, even US English.
As for evolution, language does indeed evolve but only when changes are accepted by a significant number of speakers. No matter how much you wish it, you can't simply start forcing a linguistic change on society without society agreeing. If you start to spell "agree" as "agrii" for example, nearly all English speakers will (rightly) tell you that you're wrong, you can't just respond to them with "language evolves". "On accident" is still rare enough that we have a choice to reject it and that's the choice I'm making.
Also, remember that there are non-Americans on this site (I'm one of them). To us, this is simply incorrect. We don't have exposure to this kind of US English in most of the American media we consume (TV, movies etc.).
indeed! I thought some crazy accident happened with the brain implant
both are used, "on accident" frequently enough to be considered legit, although I agree it sounds weird.
Symbiosis between man and AI sounds both exciting and incredibly frightening. Imagine on one hand the potential for improving our own intelligence, but on the other hand widening the gap between the rich who can afford this kind of augmentation and the poor who can't.
This is going to be a hell of a ride.
This is going to be a hell of a ride.
I'm wondering if someone else could have control of the implant.
Involuntary implants for behavior control of violent criminals, or just hackers taking control of regular implants, or worse still ... advertisers
It is not hard to come up with plenty of dystopian scenarios involving this sort of technology.
Involuntary implants for behavior control of violent criminals, or just hackers taking control of regular implants, or worse still ... advertisers
It is not hard to come up with plenty of dystopian scenarios involving this sort of technology.
> I'm wondering if someone else could have control of the implant.
My thoughts are that each brain has their own neural network that is unique to the person. This would mean that each neuron, despite similar/same location, will respond uniquely, as our personal neural networks were trained separately (across many years/decades). While I believe it may be possible to train a system to output stimulation to invoke a response, it would be susceptible to the same issues as simple password hashing (that is, while you could break a single hashed password, it would be computationally inefficient). Ignoring quantum computing theory, I think this would then make developing a system that can accurately control someone in LONG sequences would be difficult.
My thoughts are that each brain has their own neural network that is unique to the person. This would mean that each neuron, despite similar/same location, will respond uniquely, as our personal neural networks were trained separately (across many years/decades). While I believe it may be possible to train a system to output stimulation to invoke a response, it would be susceptible to the same issues as simple password hashing (that is, while you could break a single hashed password, it would be computationally inefficient). Ignoring quantum computing theory, I think this would then make developing a system that can accurately control someone in LONG sequences would be difficult.
Implant may be individual, but I bet you companies will do their best to turn this into Software as a Service, because of the sweet vendor lock-in, recurring payment money. Consequences, as always, be damned.
Sounds like in theory, you should be able to just remove the bluetooth battery unit from behind your ear to completely disable the implants. However, if someone else is in control of your brain, perhaps you wouldn't be able to...
[deleted]
The tv show dollhouse dealt with that concept.
Also... Think of the potential for ad delivery!
They touched on that in the presentation. Specifically, they absolutely believe ads through the device crosses an ethical line.
stimulate_purchase_region_of_brain(customer_id);Ads where you can't close your eyes or foveate away... wonderful.
maybe the ads will be for schizophrenia medication to treat the resulting schizophrenia
I'm reminded of Ted Chiang's short story Catching Crumbs from the Table HN linked to a little while back: https://www.nature.com/articles/35014679
Imagine your identity and self being lost to an implant or being around people whose motivations and drive are no longer human.
Imagine the gap between rich and poor to be muddled with an arguable gap between human species.
Imagine the very real arguments about what consciousness is, what a person is with relation to a self spreading to include the machine hardware, perhaps entirely.
Imagine the gap between rich and poor to be muddled with an arguable gap between human species.
Imagine the very real arguments about what consciousness is, what a person is with relation to a self spreading to include the machine hardware, perhaps entirely.
>but on the other hand widening the gap between the rich who can afford this kind of augmentation and the poor who can't.
Once two-way communication is achieved, there will be huge leaps in what people can do in their lifetimes. Doubly-so if we figure out how to improve our perception of time and turn ourselves into high speed cameras. We'll have more thoughts per hour, while having access to all of human knowledge and be able to run complicated computer sims (games or actual physical work sims) and do accurate calculations and quickly design stuff with CAD software.
Once two-way communication is achieved, there will be huge leaps in what people can do in their lifetimes. Doubly-so if we figure out how to improve our perception of time and turn ourselves into high speed cameras. We'll have more thoughts per hour, while having access to all of human knowledge and be able to run complicated computer sims (games or actual physical work sims) and do accurate calculations and quickly design stuff with CAD software.
Or, imagine the vast 'opportunity' a 'voluntary' accepted neural pathway for advertising directly into the brain will have ...
I don't feel like my ability to interface with the computer is a major bottleneck for me. If I'm writing code, for example, my typing speed is really not a factor. Even typing this very short comment, I paused several times to think of how to phrase things.
It definitely is for me. Not all the time - I can type at the speed of thought, and using powerful languages + some completions minimizes the time I spend frustrating over boilerplate - but frequently enough, and especially when conceptualizing and designing something.
When designing, even a whiteboard is a bottleneck for me, and so is pen and paper. I can't draw nearly as fast as I need, and then I can't really manipulate the drawings much either. I dream of being able to conjure 2D and 3D diagrams at will, of manipulating them and connecting them together. When focused, I really do feel like I have limited RAM and a very slow I/O for swap.
(I seem to suffer from aphantasia. I'm jealous of people who can freely visualize and manipulate stuff in their heads and actually "see" the results.)
When designing, even a whiteboard is a bottleneck for me, and so is pen and paper. I can't draw nearly as fast as I need, and then I can't really manipulate the drawings much either. I dream of being able to conjure 2D and 3D diagrams at will, of manipulating them and connecting them together. When focused, I really do feel like I have limited RAM and a very slow I/O for swap.
(I seem to suffer from aphantasia. I'm jealous of people who can freely visualize and manipulate stuff in their heads and actually "see" the results.)
> I seem to suffer from aphantasia
I'm interested for the same reasons - I can't hold much of an image in my head for very long, and being able to persist what I can imagine so I can examine it in detail with my actual eyes would be extremely useful.
I'm interested for the same reasons - I can't hold much of an image in my head for very long, and being able to persist what I can imagine so I can examine it in detail with my actual eyes would be extremely useful.
FWIW Tibetan Buddhism has concentration exercises revolving around visualisation that might help develop this ability. Not sure if it would work for 'true' aphantasia.
For anyone who wants to look into that, it's called "kasina practice." There's a chapter about it in Daniel Ingram's book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, though he describes it as an advanced technique for people who already have a high degree of concentration.
There's also "image streaming" which is similar, and might be more accessible:
https://photographyinsider.info/image-streaming-for-photogra...
http://www.winwenger.com/imstream.htm
http://www.winwenger.com/isbackup.htm
There's also "image streaming" which is similar, and might be more accessible:
https://photographyinsider.info/image-streaming-for-photogra...
http://www.winwenger.com/imstream.htm
http://www.winwenger.com/isbackup.htm
From what I know, Kasina practice involves visualising certain simple shapes or objects such as candle flames and coloured disks.
Tibetan Buddhist practices involve visualisation of fairly complex 'deities'; supernatural beings wearing certain clothes, certain ornaments, surrounded by certain other complex objects. As the visual complexity of the imagined scene is much more than in Kasina practice, the 'phantastic' benefits might be different as well. The deities are convenient as visual object because (I suppose) Tibetans are familiar with their visual appearance. Choosing any other similarly complex familiar object should work as well.
Tibetan Buddhist practices involve visualisation of fairly complex 'deities'; supernatural beings wearing certain clothes, certain ornaments, surrounded by certain other complex objects. As the visual complexity of the imagined scene is much more than in Kasina practice, the 'phantastic' benefits might be different as well. The deities are convenient as visual object because (I suppose) Tibetans are familiar with their visual appearance. Choosing any other similarly complex familiar object should work as well.
Ingram described Kasina as gradually increasing the complexity of the images, after success with simple ones. But I confess I don't really know much about this.
I've stumbled across the "Image Streaming" notion before, on those same few websites. Is there any third-party support for the idea? Such as a published study, slatestarcodex-style book review, or (at this point) a few redditors claiming "it worked for me"...
It unfortunately sets off my BS radar in full:
* Most references to the technique appears to originate from a book called "The Einstein Factor: A Proven New Method for Increasing Your Intelligence", by the same Win Wenger as you linked above.
* Win Wenger is always written as "Win Wenger, Ph.D", but I can find exactly one paper from him on Google scholar [0], written solo, written well after he was already publishing books [1].
* The "Reinhart Study" cited by the book is listed on this website [2] with the heading "Reviewers have found that this study was statistically inadequate. Further and better studies are requested, please contact [email protected]".
* The author of that not-published paper is listed as "Charles P. Reinert, Ph.D., Dep't of Chemistry/Physics" (not psychology).
* Other works attributed to Win Wenger on that same site are very obviously nuts [3], containing such gems as "It is unclear at this point whether anyone in fractile theory or in interference pattern physics has noticed yet the relationship between these two fields, each of which by itself is and will be totally transforming our understanding of our world and of ourselves within the next decade or so."
In short, Win Wenger appears to be someone without any actual credibility who is nevertheless attempting vainly to forge it. And I can't find any actually credible references to this technique working.
[0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2162-6057....
[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0931865018/ref=dbs_a_def_r...
[2] http://www.geniusbydesign.com/other/windocs/reinert/rein_1.s...
[3] http://www.geniusbydesign.com/other/windocs/physics.shtml
It unfortunately sets off my BS radar in full:
* Most references to the technique appears to originate from a book called "The Einstein Factor: A Proven New Method for Increasing Your Intelligence", by the same Win Wenger as you linked above.
* Win Wenger is always written as "Win Wenger, Ph.D", but I can find exactly one paper from him on Google scholar [0], written solo, written well after he was already publishing books [1].
* The "Reinhart Study" cited by the book is listed on this website [2] with the heading "Reviewers have found that this study was statistically inadequate. Further and better studies are requested, please contact [email protected]".
* The author of that not-published paper is listed as "Charles P. Reinert, Ph.D., Dep't of Chemistry/Physics" (not psychology).
* Other works attributed to Win Wenger on that same site are very obviously nuts [3], containing such gems as "It is unclear at this point whether anyone in fractile theory or in interference pattern physics has noticed yet the relationship between these two fields, each of which by itself is and will be totally transforming our understanding of our world and of ourselves within the next decade or so."
In short, Win Wenger appears to be someone without any actual credibility who is nevertheless attempting vainly to forge it. And I can't find any actually credible references to this technique working.
[0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2162-6057....
[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0931865018/ref=dbs_a_def_r...
[2] http://www.geniusbydesign.com/other/windocs/reinert/rein_1.s...
[3] http://www.geniusbydesign.com/other/windocs/physics.shtml
Heh, I hadn't investigated. I came across it from this post by a redditor who said it worked for them, but later backpedaled.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/c0o1tk/ive_just...
Some comments here say they made progress with it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/cb07w1/dont_be_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/c0o1tk/ive_just...
Some comments here say they made progress with it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/cb07w1/dont_be_...
No, but the language certainly is.
Imagine a computer interface capable of actualising the conceptual structures that you are imagining.
Imagine that this interface had a feedback mechanism simulating a virtual eye allowing you to perceive a full three dimensional rendering of that concept in real time.
Now think of an arraylist, think of how it responds to changes, visualise the corner cases.
You just wrote the code.
Imagine a computer interface capable of actualising the conceptual structures that you are imagining.
Imagine that this interface had a feedback mechanism simulating a virtual eye allowing you to perceive a full three dimensional rendering of that concept in real time.
Now think of an arraylist, think of how it responds to changes, visualise the corner cases.
You just wrote the code.
Can we please not adopt this as a potential use case for this topic though? Real applications look more like this:
Imagine a movement. Follow an intense training protocol many times for each possible movement so that the signal processing component actually gets meaningful data it can differentiate and is certain enough that you want to trigger something. After multiple hours of training it might actually get good enough. Input dimensionality for that method would likely be simple action triggers (at least less than a traditional keyboard) instead of a complex concept abstraction.
Alternative: Stare at a board of visual stimuli, repeat for a few hours in order to train the system to your brain. Stare at board of visual stimuli again in order to actually use the thing. Again, slow paced and limited input dimensionality.
While these invasive models produce better signals than non-invasive BCI, they do not include a feedback mechanism and have far less throughput than using a keyboard. Which is great if you have a medical need for the technology and thus cannot use traditional interfaces, everything else is sci fi. I'm not trying to say that this isn't cool but we should really refrain from painting it as some miracle tech, otherwise we cannot really complain if media adopts that image and misrepresents the whole field again.
Imagine a movement. Follow an intense training protocol many times for each possible movement so that the signal processing component actually gets meaningful data it can differentiate and is certain enough that you want to trigger something. After multiple hours of training it might actually get good enough. Input dimensionality for that method would likely be simple action triggers (at least less than a traditional keyboard) instead of a complex concept abstraction.
Alternative: Stare at a board of visual stimuli, repeat for a few hours in order to train the system to your brain. Stare at board of visual stimuli again in order to actually use the thing. Again, slow paced and limited input dimensionality.
While these invasive models produce better signals than non-invasive BCI, they do not include a feedback mechanism and have far less throughput than using a keyboard. Which is great if you have a medical need for the technology and thus cannot use traditional interfaces, everything else is sci fi. I'm not trying to say that this isn't cool but we should really refrain from painting it as some miracle tech, otherwise we cannot really complain if media adopts that image and misrepresents the whole field again.
Except that Neuralink clearly stated that they have ambitions for all of this, which is unusual for a company developing a medical device.
Also, wouldn’t the stim abilities count as a feedback mechanism?
Also, wouldn’t the stim abilities count as a feedback mechanism?
According to my 1990s graphics card packaging I have a dragon in my bedroom. I wouldn't expect a Musk company to produce underwhelming marketing claims but marketing departments don't change the state of the art in research.
Making this sci-fi levels of usable and getting it to consumers are both pretty unrealistic claims. I'm pretty sure you still couldn't get invasive research BCI past an ethics board around here if the patients skull isn't opened out of medical necessity anyway, doing so for fun isn't analogous to getting a piercing or tattoo, it's analogous to chopping off a limb to get a robotic arm.
Making this sci-fi levels of usable and getting it to consumers are both pretty unrealistic claims. I'm pretty sure you still couldn't get invasive research BCI past an ethics board around here if the patients skull isn't opened out of medical necessity anyway, doing so for fun isn't analogous to getting a piercing or tattoo, it's analogous to chopping off a limb to get a robotic arm.
Sure, it's not like a Musk company ever broke the mold before.
The man's not perfect, he's a PR nightmare and his estimates tend to be far enough off to give cause for concern regarding financials.
But he's brought us reusable rockets and very usable electric cars in what is still a staggeringly short time frame.
What he's doing here makes me nervous, but there's no fucking way I'm betting against him.
The man's not perfect, he's a PR nightmare and his estimates tend to be far enough off to give cause for concern regarding financials.
But he's brought us reusable rockets and very usable electric cars in what is still a staggeringly short time frame.
What he's doing here makes me nervous, but there's no fucking way I'm betting against him.
the first electric car was invented in 1828, and the electric motor isn't that complicated of a device. Reusable rockets are a little more complicated, but fantasies about plugging the human brain into a computer are to those inventions what a sandcorn is to the sahara desert.
Musk has the habit of taking some established technology like solarpanels or pneumatic tubes and then repackage them in ways that get futurology type people all exited, but that doesn't explain how he's going to hook us into the matrix.
Musk has the habit of taking some established technology like solarpanels or pneumatic tubes and then repackage them in ways that get futurology type people all exited, but that doesn't explain how he's going to hook us into the matrix.
And yet, until Tesla came about we didn't have that many electric cars running around, nor did we have many companies investing heavily to change the status quo of gas cars. The same goes to reusable rockets. As many other people said in this thread, Musk is a PR nightmare and is a very peculiar public person when it comes to his tweets and such, but I wouldn't put it past him to actually find the talent and bankroll this until they achieve their objective.
There's no doubt that Musk has a knack for high risk entrepreneurship and he definitely very well how to repackage and promote things, but Neuralink wants to invent devices that come straight out of the science fiction realm.
Not only do we not have the AI required for natural language processing of the sort Elon is after, we also don't really have the neuroscience that explains how information is stored in the brain or let alone how we "write" to it. That's a different beast.
Not only do we not have the AI required for natural language processing of the sort Elon is after, we also don't really have the neuroscience that explains how information is stored in the brain or let alone how we "write" to it. That's a different beast.
Sure, I didn't want to imply that they won't make money on this. Just trying to give a bit of perspective versus their marketing :) No matter what I think of the feasibility, a Musk-backed commercial player in the field will likely stir something up. With the pace of progress in the field over the last decades, that might just be a good thing.
I'm certainly not saying that what he's doing is all good either.
The idea that this is going to be controlled with anything other than a direct connection to an air-gapped computer scares the shit out of me.
The idea that this is going to be controlled with anything other than a direct connection to an air-gapped computer scares the shit out of me.
> Sure, it's not like a Musk company ever broke the mold before.
Well to be fair they really haven't much, as far as technological advancements are concerned.
Reusable rockets weren't used before not because we didn't know how to do it, but because it doesn't seem to be economical. The judge is still out on whether SpaceX will actually be able to reuse the first stages in a way that's even remotely useful.
And there's even less innovation involved in Tesla cars. The only new thing they bring to the table is Autopilot, which arguably is a huge accomplishment, but not one that's "breaking the mold" in the hypercompetitive autonomous car space right now, and hasn't really delivered on its promises either.
What Neuralink proposes is so far ahead in terms of what we even glimpse to be technologically possible I have trouble thinking it's not basically his pet project that is guaranteed to receive press and funding just because the topic is sexy and it has Musk's name of it. If we are ever to get as far as NL implies, it will take more than a single consumer electronics company.
tl;dr I'll believe it when I see it.
Well to be fair they really haven't much, as far as technological advancements are concerned.
Reusable rockets weren't used before not because we didn't know how to do it, but because it doesn't seem to be economical. The judge is still out on whether SpaceX will actually be able to reuse the first stages in a way that's even remotely useful.
And there's even less innovation involved in Tesla cars. The only new thing they bring to the table is Autopilot, which arguably is a huge accomplishment, but not one that's "breaking the mold" in the hypercompetitive autonomous car space right now, and hasn't really delivered on its promises either.
What Neuralink proposes is so far ahead in terms of what we even glimpse to be technologically possible I have trouble thinking it's not basically his pet project that is guaranteed to receive press and funding just because the topic is sexy and it has Musk's name of it. If we are ever to get as far as NL implies, it will take more than a single consumer electronics company.
tl;dr I'll believe it when I see it.
People who are not impressed by the innovations of Musk’s companies generally aren’t involved in those fields.
I had a NASA fellow (guidance, navigation, etc, so a relevant field) who literally told me landing on a barge is impossible, just months before they accomplished it.
I personally think this will take decades. And the implications of it for humanity if it works are probably greater than anything else Elon is working on.
I had a NASA fellow (guidance, navigation, etc, so a relevant field) who literally told me landing on a barge is impossible, just months before they accomplished it.
I personally think this will take decades. And the implications of it for humanity if it works are probably greater than anything else Elon is working on.
Because Neuralink wasn't started in order to develop a medical device, it was started with an explicit goal to develop a BCI to ultimately improve the cognitive capabilities of healthy humans.
This has little to do with how code is written. It's so much more than "visualize an array". The gap from brain reading thread to what you described is like the gap between DeepMind and AGI
I disagree.
We're already close to replacing the eyes as a source of visual data.
We've already used brain waves to directly control input to a computer.
What I was talking about was essentially computer aided design with an integrated computer.
And I know how code is written, on many occasions I've known almost completely the structures that I'm going to spend the next two and a half hours translating and typing out.
The minutiae of the code that emerges as I'm typing is often an exception, but I generally have a fair idea of where and what the corner cases are going to be.
The biggest bottleneck by far comes in translating the internally visualised structure into an English derived programming language.
We're already close to replacing the eyes as a source of visual data.
We've already used brain waves to directly control input to a computer.
What I was talking about was essentially computer aided design with an integrated computer.
And I know how code is written, on many occasions I've known almost completely the structures that I'm going to spend the next two and a half hours translating and typing out.
The minutiae of the code that emerges as I'm typing is often an exception, but I generally have a fair idea of where and what the corner cases are going to be.
The biggest bottleneck by far comes in translating the internally visualised structure into an English derived programming language.
Imagine an infinite loop
Sure, it's a box with an arrow that goes from the box to the box.
So, a loop?
Obviously this is a very personal thing, but that is not the case for me. I often can “see” entire chunks of code in my head, and typing out those 20 lines ends up feeling slow and frustrating.
Of course that’s not systematically the case - in many instances, I am thinking as I am writing the code. But for many straightforward control functions, tests, constructors/destructors, etc. the keyboard absolutely feels like a bottleneck.
(There is the orthogonal debate that perhaps a better language would allow me to express more concisely these things that feel straightforward)
Of course that’s not systematically the case - in many instances, I am thinking as I am writing the code. But for many straightforward control functions, tests, constructors/destructors, etc. the keyboard absolutely feels like a bottleneck.
(There is the orthogonal debate that perhaps a better language would allow me to express more concisely these things that feel straightforward)
I know exactly what kind of frustration you mean. I think this frustration often comes about, because writing code up is a first quality control and it might seem unnecessary for straight forward stuff to be quality controlled.
While spending less work on trivial stuff seems reasonable, if I do introduce a bug in trivial code it will be harder to track it down, because I will always first check whether or not all the tricky parts work. On top of that you indirectly incentivize yourself for thinking something is trivial, because it would mean less work and somehow my brain is very good at tricking me into doing less work in situations where obviously more work is required.
So, even if it was possible to paste code from the brain I would recommend reading it again carefully and then the speed advantages are gone. The only situation where you wouldn’t need it are really repetitive tasks, but in these situations you can have macros/snippets.
For me too. Something like auto-completion for the brain. Not in the "let me complete this command/file name for you" But in the "let me write immediately and correctly the 20 lines of code for the exact procedure you think you need and you just thought in a second". I know it sounds like it is impossible now, but who knows? Maybe it will start with some macros for the brain.
That might not always be possible. Sometimes I don’t know the full definition of the function upfront; I have to discover/invent it one line at a time and can’t do that without pausing and thinking about the line I just wrote.
Even if the speed is identical to how fast you are thinking of words to type, there are plenty of applications (prevent RSI, accessibility for amputees).
Not at a desk and keyboard, but on the phone? Im excited for brain computer interface to liberate software development from the desk. I like to walk and think but today I have to sit at a computer to implement and verify my ideas. With a bci I could do more than theorize.
I'm also excited offload mathematics to a computer.
I'm also excited offload mathematics to a computer.
I don't feel like my ability to interface with the computer is a major bottleneck for me. If I'm writing code, for example, my typing speed is really not a factor. Even typing this very short comment, I paused several times to think of how to phrase things.
It feels like a huge rate limiting factor for me. Even typing 2x as fast would be a phenomenal improvement.
Speaking is even worse though. Communicating verbally with other humans is frustratingly slow and inaccurate. A new non-verbal means to communicate would enable us to understand others faster and better. This would solve a lot of problems immediately that arise from our inability to understand others or the amount of time it takes to arrive at understanding.
It feels like a huge rate limiting factor for me. Even typing 2x as fast would be a phenomenal improvement.
Speaking is even worse though. Communicating verbally with other humans is frustratingly slow and inaccurate. A new non-verbal means to communicate would enable us to understand others faster and better. This would solve a lot of problems immediately that arise from our inability to understand others or the amount of time it takes to arrive at understanding.
It’s not just for coding. Imagine being able to kick off Alfred app [1] workflows from your mind!
I actually have looked into this using a Neurosky mind wave, but the signal wasn’t great.
I also tried a USB foot peddle.
I actually have looked into this using a Neurosky mind wave, but the signal wasn’t great.
I also tried a USB foot peddle.
[1] https://www.alfredapp.com/I respectfully disagree. Your first mistake is equating programming to input. Ask yourself how much time you lose to the externalities of coding (ci, context switches, the shell, etc). Consider the xkcd on automation [1] and programmers' obsession with screen real estate. Why do we work so hard to eliminate distractions while coding?
I think this idea that computation/programming is a thing that happens through a window into the world of computing is one of the major concepts of our time that will be laughed at in the future. Solving HCI is (imho) one of the most important problems of our time.
1 - https://xkcd.com/1205/
I think this idea that computation/programming is a thing that happens through a window into the world of computing is one of the major concepts of our time that will be laughed at in the future. Solving HCI is (imho) one of the most important problems of our time.
1 - https://xkcd.com/1205/
This is not just a neural keyboard. They are also working on write ability to the brain. I am a laymen, and this is far off, but imagine being able to access all of the docs for a given language...
You might think: “what are the params for that function?”
That question would be detected, the answer found online, and would be presented to you as a “memory.”
You might think: “what are the params for that function?”
That question would be detected, the answer found online, and would be presented to you as a “memory.”
Don’t take the thought = input too literally, your computer input companion will be an AI system, not a keyboard.
Just think about how Siri’s AI can mostly understand what you’re saying even with background noise, stuttering, pausing, and coughing when talking. Now imagine talking to Siri at the speed of your thoughts.
Just think about how Siri’s AI can mostly understand what you’re saying even with background noise, stuttering, pausing, and coughing when talking. Now imagine talking to Siri at the speed of your thoughts.
I've always thought riding a motorcycle is sometimes hard to do because holding onto the bike is at odds with working the controls because both use your hands and feet.
Tasks along these lines would be a great match for better computer interfaces.
Tasks along these lines would be a great match for better computer interfaces.
You should be gripping your bike mostly with your knees. Also, I think that sense of mechanical coordination is something most motorcyclists actually enjoy.
That makes it hard to click your heels.
To refute your assertion more precisely, there is ample evidence that bikes have hand and foot controls that are frequently modified from the current controls. Some electric bikes move both brakes to the handlebars. Many roadracing motorcycles have added thumb brakes. And I've had plenty of situations on dirtbikes where I can't use to the shifter or rear brake because of silliness like water or mud. And then there's broken levers.
To refute your assertion more precisely, there is ample evidence that bikes have hand and foot controls that are frequently modified from the current controls. Some electric bikes move both brakes to the handlebars. Many roadracing motorcycles have added thumb brakes. And I've had plenty of situations on dirtbikes where I can't use to the shifter or rear brake because of silliness like water or mud. And then there's broken levers.
afaik it's more about brain to brain interface. I can vividly imagine an horse eating grass in a field next to a river with a sunset in the background, but unless I paint it I have no way to make you see the same thing, and even if I do paint it it won't be a 1:1 representation.
Another example would be feelings, describing love, fear, anger is almost impossible by words. I can also think about sharing dreams, memories, with sounds/scents/&c.
I'm not a huge fan of the thing, I'd probably never get one myself, but I see the potential real use cases.
Another example would be feelings, describing love, fear, anger is almost impossible by words. I can also think about sharing dreams, memories, with sounds/scents/&c.
I'm not a huge fan of the thing, I'd probably never get one myself, but I see the potential real use cases.
It'll be interesting to see how things like that play out, once we have finer-grained read/write than we do now. Your eyes aren't cameras, and your memories aren't recordings of the outside world. So if you try to broadcast your mental image of a horse, imagine some extremely lossy compression where the recipient has different horse emojis. Your thinking of a horse in a scene may render to their image of a horse in a scene.
Try 3d modelling in ZBrush
imagine doing that without needing to sit in front or near your computer though
While we wait for the delayed stream to start, it's worth taking a peek at their job board which has some interesting bits of information in the job descriptions: https://jobs.lever.co/neuralink
For example:
> "As an Optical Engineer at Neuralink you will develop custom optics and imaging systems used directly in our surgical robot, and associated consumables manufacturing systems." [0]
EDIT: I guess the article from The Verge linked in the other comments sheds even more light on that particular bit:
> "[...] the company has developed ”a neurosurgical robot capable of inserting six threads (192 electrodes) per minute [automatically],” according to the white paper. " [1]
Similarly described in the Bloomberg article which was just released [2]
[0] - https://jobs.lever.co/neuralink/c98c011c-0f49-497e-a504-59a5...
[1] - https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20697123/elon-musk-neural...
[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-17/elon-musk...
For example:
> "As an Optical Engineer at Neuralink you will develop custom optics and imaging systems used directly in our surgical robot, and associated consumables manufacturing systems." [0]
EDIT: I guess the article from The Verge linked in the other comments sheds even more light on that particular bit:
> "[...] the company has developed ”a neurosurgical robot capable of inserting six threads (192 electrodes) per minute [automatically],” according to the white paper. " [1]
Similarly described in the Bloomberg article which was just released [2]
[0] - https://jobs.lever.co/neuralink/c98c011c-0f49-497e-a504-59a5...
[1] - https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20697123/elon-musk-neural...
[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-17/elon-musk...
All of these cyberpunk futures people have in the comments about writing code via their brain interface is fun speculation. I know a young boy who is almost totally paralyzed head to foot. If in 5years this gives him significantly greater mobility and ability to communicate it will be a true blessing.
This is the real sort of early application, and it’s also the least frightening.
I hope we see massive improvements in computer security in the next few decades because otherwise “jacking in” to any kind of computer with Internet access is a terrifying thought.
I hope we see massive improvements in computer security in the next few decades because otherwise “jacking in” to any kind of computer with Internet access is a terrifying thought.
Here's the direct YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vbh3t7WVI
Thanks, we've changed to that from https://neuralink.com/, which no longer seems to have the video.
SpaceX's StarHopper engine looks like it caught fire, which is livestreaming at the same time[0].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACYW4RDCS90
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACYW4RDCS90
Didn’t catch fire. Just had a delayed exothermic reaction
To me it's just unfathomable to imagine what the future of humanity looks like if everyone has superhuman intelligence available at their fingertips. I imagine we will no longer be differentiable based on our articulacy or own personal genius, which would effectively undermine the decade long mastery that many people took to hone their crafts. I also wonder if people would become more homogeneous as our own superintelligence shows us the faults in our own eccentricities. The future of work, and creative work, which I find most interesting, is kind of scary to speculate about. But, guess we'll just have to see where the science takes us :)
Even in the early 90's people would imagine the vast intellectual expansion that the Internet would bring once electronic access to libraries would become ubiquitous. I'm afraid we'll descend even more into a Huxleyan 'Ow my balls' intellectual sinkhole, but I hope you are right.
The Internet is still pretty awesome, though.
Like all such tech advances, there will be a mixed bag. Best to pick and choose the advantages while avoiding the bad parts. Well-curated YouTube videos versus digital heroin.
Like all such tech advances, there will be a mixed bag. Best to pick and choose the advantages while avoiding the bad parts. Well-curated YouTube videos versus digital heroin.
People would still need to desire to get better. This is a pretty lacking trait in the majority of humanity.
That is so true. Something like this would be so enabling for someone like me who has always had serious interest in complicated domains (physics, complexity theory, etc..), but probably neither the mental facilities or excess time to fully understand them. I wonder if these types of technologies will pave a path to more easily 'downloading' and then understanding such topics. That would totally change my life.
The weirdest part (both good and bad) of digitally hacking the brain will be hacking desire itself.
Step two: assimilation into a collective.
We already curate the people we hang out with, and to some extent the people we disagree with, but listen to.
If one day we can really really scan brains, how do we resist the temptation to eat them (figuratively) and become something ... more ...
We already curate the people we hang out with, and to some extent the people we disagree with, but listen to.
If one day we can really really scan brains, how do we resist the temptation to eat them (figuratively) and become something ... more ...
Tools are only as effective as the minds that utilize them. Human experience isn't becoming more homogenous now, despite everyone having similar access to the internet.
Life will change with advanced BCI, but it's difficult to anticipate how.
Life will change with advanced BCI, but it's difficult to anticipate how.
Humans driving cars is probably unfathomable to chimpanzees.
Yeah. In such a sense we could just imagine this potentially being one of the largest paradigm shifts we've ever experienced as a species.
I guess my bias is that I feel like my own personal mind-map or world lens is my own personal competitive advantage against the rest of the world and that's what I use to differentiate and make money. Taking that advantage away seems like a life-deranging experience as it defines who I am.
But that's how incumbents always feel when they get disrupted. I suppose victors always have defined themselves by their ability to adapt to change.
I guess my bias is that I feel like my own personal mind-map or world lens is my own personal competitive advantage against the rest of the world and that's what I use to differentiate and make money. Taking that advantage away seems like a life-deranging experience as it defines who I am.
But that's how incumbents always feel when they get disrupted. I suppose victors always have defined themselves by their ability to adapt to change.
I don't think it is taking an advantage away. New inventions mean new opportunities and doors opening not closing.
Can't wait for the day, when we can create a dump file of our experience - equivalent of mp4, which has not just the sound and moving image but also other things like smell, temperature and other bodily sensations. Its almost like one of those Black Mirror episodes, in which you experience stuff, while just sitting on your sofa.
Pleasure industry should be one of the early adopters of this.
Pleasure industry should be one of the early adopters of this.
> Its almost like one of those Black Mirror episodes
I'd always thought of Black Mirror as a warning or reminder to consider the wider consequences of technology. Not as a motivator to develop it faster.
The thought of this kind of technology (no matter how far away it really is from being deployed) terrifies me. I certainly do not trust someone like Elon Musk to develop it responsibly and pause to consider what it will do to all of humanity. That's what is at stake here, the definition of humanity, for better and worse.
I'd always thought of Black Mirror as a warning or reminder to consider the wider consequences of technology. Not as a motivator to develop it faster.
The thought of this kind of technology (no matter how far away it really is from being deployed) terrifies me. I certainly do not trust someone like Elon Musk to develop it responsibly and pause to consider what it will do to all of humanity. That's what is at stake here, the definition of humanity, for better and worse.
But Elon does reflect on things. Part of his motivation for starting this company was to give humanity the possibility to interface with powerful AIs, which he fears will „leave us behind“. So yes, it might change the definition of humanity, but not because it‘s some unintended side consequence, but because it‘s a solution for a - in his perception - more existential threat to humanity as a whole.
It would be ironic if we ourselves turned into AI-like super powerful entities and AI in a sense of the word as we understand it now, never happens. If that moment were ever to get here, I would imagine we would not "exist" for long or under any pleasant circumstances given the likely fact that the creator of such technology would embed themselves at the center of it, with unlimited powers to control others.
These stories have played out before. Maybe the best example is Oppenheimer vs Edward Teller. There will always be an Edward Teller. Yet we still haven't blown ourselves up. If you ask why and how you will find hope.
If you're interested in the topic of this comment and its replies, consider reading about the Vulnerable World Hypothesis [1].
I don't know how much credence to give it, however it's a fascinating thought experiment, especially the "Type-1" vulnerabilities.
[1] https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf
I don't know how much credence to give it, however it's a fascinating thought experiment, especially the "Type-1" vulnerabilities.
[1] https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf
It ultimately seems to depend on collective discipline to avoid the quickest options.
> If you ask why and how you will find hope.
Unless you conclude "dumb luck".
Unless you conclude "dumb luck".
Lots of people worked at making it look like "dumb luck". That point gets missed. What they did is not well understood by most people who cry about the dangers of the next pandoras box.
> I certainly do not trust someone like Elon Musk to develop it responsibly
There's probably no one we could trust with this task. The best we can do is avoid having a monopoly and lock-in.
Additionally, you'd be able to more accurately predict what new technology will do to humanity if you could calculate and process information like a computer.
We need to increase our capacity to comprehend complex systems as things become more complex.
There's probably no one we could trust with this task. The best we can do is avoid having a monopoly and lock-in.
Additionally, you'd be able to more accurately predict what new technology will do to humanity if you could calculate and process information like a computer.
We need to increase our capacity to comprehend complex systems as things become more complex.
Isn't there an episode where exactly that kind of "experience dump" is being used by companies to perform background checks on employees?
Now imagine, thought theft, similar to modern day organ theft. Creepy pervs preying on young people to acquire their intimate memories and then selling them.
Well in "The Entire History of You" (s01e03) its used by police in the airport before letting you into the airport as a security screening.
This idea has already been used in a movie 24 years ago.
Check out "Strange Days" (1995)
I suspect it's a lot older than that. Neuromancer (1984) has direct brain control of hacking, and I think it's a trope in various 70s sci-fi. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could find a citation from before the war.
Let's not forget about snuff films!
A biorxiv paper on the neural sewing technology: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/03/14/578... - I believe the authors are now at Neuralink.
The stitching is interesting - there are lots of near-term implantables with clinical benefits that this could benefit.
I'm less convinced by the overall concept of "I know kung fu", but easy deep brain stimulation or cascade monitoring is probably enough to make a tidy buck.
I'm less convinced by the overall concept of "I know kung fu", but easy deep brain stimulation or cascade monitoring is probably enough to make a tidy buck.
Here's an article from Verge that seems to be from a journalist attending the event: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20697123/elon-musk-neural...
A key aspect for me will be whether Neuralink can enable brain control interfaces that don't require sending signals to muscles.
A key example that falls short is CRTL-labs' armband. I've seen a few demos that allow you to "control a keyboard with your brain" while wearing the armband. The only problem is that this setup requires you to move your hands as if you were actually typing on a keyboard. If my hands have to move I might as well use a real keyboard. I realize that there are some people that could use CTRL-labs' armband, such as amputees, but it's not compelling to me.
If Neuralink can let me control a computer by visualizing words or something similar instead of physically moving my hand then I'll call it a win.
A key example that falls short is CRTL-labs' armband. I've seen a few demos that allow you to "control a keyboard with your brain" while wearing the armband. The only problem is that this setup requires you to move your hands as if you were actually typing on a keyboard. If my hands have to move I might as well use a real keyboard. I realize that there are some people that could use CTRL-labs' armband, such as amputees, but it's not compelling to me.
If Neuralink can let me control a computer by visualizing words or something similar instead of physically moving my hand then I'll call it a win.
I thought the ctrl-labs stuff went beyond that. One of their demos had a phone game that you could control without moving your hand at all.
They also talked about virtual arms, and there was one guy controlling nine cursors simultaneously.
They also talked about virtual arms, and there was one guy controlling nine cursors simultaneously.
The CTRL-kit, which is the "real" product they have, uses electromyography, which needs muscle activation to work, so something must twitch at a minimum to send a signal. A good interface may enable controlling multiple things at once, but they would all require muscle activity.
They may have other things in R&D. At least they are closer to having a real product than Neuralink and they started their presentation on time at Re:MARS.
They may have other things in R&D. At least they are closer to having a real product than Neuralink and they started their presentation on time at Re:MARS.
Neural interfaces
One of my biggest “Wow!” moments of 2018 took place in the offices of neural interface company CTRL-labs. Their demo involves someone playing the old Asteroids computer game without touching a keyboard, using machine learning to interpret the nerve signals that are sent to the hands. But it isn’t quite what you think. Moving things in the digital realm without moving your hands seems startling enough (though it’s worth remembering that it was once considered remarkable to be able to read silently without moving your lips). But that’s just the first stage. Essentially, users of this technology “grow” another virtual hand, which they can move independently of their physical hands. One of the researchers bowled me over when he said he was “working on controlling nine cursors at once.” Gradually, then suddenly, our children will interface with machines in deeper and deeper ways. Humanity is already going cyborg (see trend 1); expect it to accelerate. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that AI will replace humans when it can be used even more powerfully to augment them.
from https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/gradually-then-suddenly
One of my biggest “Wow!” moments of 2018 took place in the offices of neural interface company CTRL-labs. Their demo involves someone playing the old Asteroids computer game without touching a keyboard, using machine learning to interpret the nerve signals that are sent to the hands. But it isn’t quite what you think. Moving things in the digital realm without moving your hands seems startling enough (though it’s worth remembering that it was once considered remarkable to be able to read silently without moving your lips). But that’s just the first stage. Essentially, users of this technology “grow” another virtual hand, which they can move independently of their physical hands. One of the researchers bowled me over when he said he was “working on controlling nine cursors at once.” Gradually, then suddenly, our children will interface with machines in deeper and deeper ways. Humanity is already going cyborg (see trend 1); expect it to accelerate. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that AI will replace humans when it can be used even more powerfully to augment them.
from https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/gradually-then-suddenly
In the asteriods demo (https://youtu.be/5Z5aZK2C3ew?t=711) the only reason his fingers aren't moving a bunch is because the hand is flat on the table and the table is pushing back. You can see his fingers twitch while he's playing.
This is the biggest overselling point from them. The only people that can grow a "virtual hand" are amputees. Everyone else simply has a shadow hand that follows what their real hand does (or would do if there wasn't a restraint). All of their control interfaces are coupled to what the shadow hand does- i.e., if the shadow hand's index finger curls in, the spaceship spins to the right in the game. In reality it's not a shadow hand they are sensing, but the neurons that control the movement in your hand/arm.
It's a fact of biology that if you are reading nerve impulses from the arm, then to control the computer something must be happening in your arm. Every motor neuron is connected to a muscle. The best we can get is a very sensitive system where your arm doesn't move very much. You cannot (without a million years of evolution) send signals to your arm without it moving. If you were to cut the neurons off from the muscle, you could then send activations without your arm moving. However, you would also lose physical movement ability, and nobody is doing that (except for amputees).
This is the biggest overselling point from them. The only people that can grow a "virtual hand" are amputees. Everyone else simply has a shadow hand that follows what their real hand does (or would do if there wasn't a restraint). All of their control interfaces are coupled to what the shadow hand does- i.e., if the shadow hand's index finger curls in, the spaceship spins to the right in the game. In reality it's not a shadow hand they are sensing, but the neurons that control the movement in your hand/arm.
It's a fact of biology that if you are reading nerve impulses from the arm, then to control the computer something must be happening in your arm. Every motor neuron is connected to a muscle. The best we can get is a very sensitive system where your arm doesn't move very much. You cannot (without a million years of evolution) send signals to your arm without it moving. If you were to cut the neurons off from the muscle, you could then send activations without your arm moving. However, you would also lose physical movement ability, and nobody is doing that (except for amputees).
I was under the impression that your fact of biology was false.
Specifically that the brain-muscle mapping isn't preprogrammed and the brain learns to control what is there.
For example people with fully formed extra digits can just have a fully functional extra finger.
This does get baked in pretty well but the adult brain can re-learn after a catastrophic injury so it's not hard to believe you could figure out how to add virtual appendages or entirely novel "extremities".
Specifically that the brain-muscle mapping isn't preprogrammed and the brain learns to control what is there.
For example people with fully formed extra digits can just have a fully functional extra finger.
This does get baked in pretty well but the adult brain can re-learn after a catastrophic injury so it's not hard to believe you could figure out how to add virtual appendages or entirely novel "extremities".
It's not false. You can't send an action potential down a motor neuron connected to a muscle without a reaction from the muscle. Do not confuse the neurons in your brain (which generate new connections all the time) with motor neurons, which is what the CTRL-labs kit is sensing.
The brain does learn to control what is there, and what is there is attached to your muscles. I'll say it again: the CTRL-labs kit works on electromyography, which only works with muscle activity. You will not magically grow new neurons in your arm that are dedicated sole to the control of a computer.
The brain does learn to control what is there, and what is there is attached to your muscles. I'll say it again: the CTRL-labs kit works on electromyography, which only works with muscle activity. You will not magically grow new neurons in your arm that are dedicated sole to the control of a computer.
it seems they are targeting motor and sensory cortex. Those do get activated by imagining the task . but it will be a very fuzzy process and require a lot of training. It remains to be seen if 1024 electrodes provide sufficient readings to be useful
with Neuralink you do not physical move.
Considering that both cochear and retinal implants are currently in the 10s of electrodes, that would be really cool if those tiny electrodes can be adapted to that usage. That could lead in a significant bump in auditory/vidual fidelity for the patient (currently they hear something that sounds to us like out of a vocoder, and see something that looks probably like a quarter of a gameboy display).
Of course the end goal would be to directly stimulate the sensory cortexes, but we had decent trains before having decent planes.
Of course the end goal would be to directly stimulate the sensory cortexes, but we had decent trains before having decent planes.
The Neuralink president said that the first human trials are aimed for 2020, but before that he said that they use their thread arrays to record neural data every day, and he described the experience of learning how to manipulate the iphone app as "trippy".
So has this thing been implanted in even a single human? Or are his words just conjecture? If not, what brains are they reading neural data from, animals?
So has this thing been implanted in even a single human? Or are his words just conjecture? If not, what brains are they reading neural data from, animals?
Elon: "the monkey has been able to control a computer with its brain" after a question about testing on animals and the ethics involved
...and if this all really works, the ethics of uplifting animals. If monkeys and cows, etc, can become intelligent via digital augmentation, it will seem pretty grotesque to eat meat. I’m not a vegetarian, but that thought has me reconsidering. Even if we’re a century or two away from that, it will be nice to not be remembered as monstrously eating other potentially-intelligent beings.
It's very likely it's in humans now, and watching the live stream it looks like they are working on a brain.
This technique has been used on rats for at least a decade now, and I believe it's already been tested on humans prior to this.
This technique has been used on rats for at least a decade now, and I believe it's already been tested on humans prior to this.
They specifically say they build on the concepts from the Utah arrays, but that their tech is much better (presumably "trippy" references were from lower res external monitors or feedback from the brain array?)
Take into account Elon's time dilation, the livestream presentation hasn't started yet.
Edit: IRL Presentation hasn't started either ( https://twitter.com/RebeccaDRobbins/status/11513308672324321... )
Edit: IRL Presentation hasn't started either ( https://twitter.com/RebeccaDRobbins/status/11513308672324321... )
Elon just said the primary purpose of the announcement tonight was to attract top talent.
[deleted]
Live impressions by a neuroscientist on Twitter: https://twitter.com/analogist_net/status/1151351005562359809
or rather, live criticism.
Here is a better, non-snarky review:
https://twitter.com/AndrewHires/status/1151362187312582658
Here is a better, non-snarky review:
https://twitter.com/AndrewHires/status/1151362187312582658
Very cynical indeed, but his overall conclusion seems to be positive: https://twitter.com/analogist_net/status/1151396253692907522
Their implant sounds impressive . I m not sure about their answer about plasticity though. IIRC , previous implants like the braingate had issue with the tuning of neurons shifting over time, requiring patients to retrain the model.
Yeah, that's a super interesting area of the whole bundle of tech they talked about. Obviously, years of in-situ research are the only way to prove anything out, but the brain is so complicated it definitely seems like there could be higher order effects between the input/output sides where the brain is rerouting and working around the fairly "static" model that the chip/backend is using. In other words, is there any reason to think that neurons will start flipping their axons around when they detect potentially alien inputs? The cells themselves are obviously capable of this whereas the electrodes are static physical objects.
Doesn't seem they would've had time to test long-term use with their threads.
As the plain black lettering, "livestream will begin shortly", prosaically displayed across the laptop screen, the laptop's fan whirred away drudging through another hot summer month. The world was about to change, but few expected it. Meanwhile, on the other end of the line, things were unexpectedly delayed.... <cue spooky music>
Iain Banks would be pleased, were he still alive. To the uninitiated: Musk is quite obviously a fan of The Culture sci-fi series by Iain Banks. This right here device is called "neural lace" in the series. The series is quite possibly the finest example of the genre that I've ever read, and it's way ahead of its time.
And it has a great quote on the neural lace, from an AI whose hobby is mucking about in humans' heads: "A more exquisite and economical method of torturing creatures such as yourself has yet to be invented."
I remember watching one or maybe two interviews of Mr Musk at one of the iteration of the Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg conferences, I think it was All Things Digital. To the delight of the audience, Mr Musk described two or three technologies right out of Iain Banks’ books including using the term neural lace. At the time I had recently read the books, so I immediately recognized the one book, but it escapes me now. I don’t think Mr Musk acknowledged the connection, but there or another interview he talked about deep conversations with his brother on sci fi topics.
The names of SpaceX barges are inspired by the series as well. One of the central protagonists in the series are enormous sentient spaceships that far outstrip humans in intelligence (and firepower, naturally). They have long names like "Of Course I Still Love You".
I can safely say I will never do this to myself. There's no advantage at all. Technology just isn't compelling enough.
Even if I could close my eyes, tense my brow, and with a wiggle of my nose, launch an army of autonomous drones to hoist a nuclear tipped cruise missile from a launch tube, and point it at some world leader, what a puny plan. And the reality is, that's not the way this will go for me.
This isn't going to be the kind of thing that gets us ahead. If anything, this is the T-Mobile Sidekick of cybernetics. And even when the new iPhone of cybernetic neural interfaces emerge, it's still going to fucking suck.
We're 10,000 light years from the kind of thing I'd find compelling. Hard pass.
Even if I could close my eyes, tense my brow, and with a wiggle of my nose, launch an army of autonomous drones to hoist a nuclear tipped cruise missile from a launch tube, and point it at some world leader, what a puny plan. And the reality is, that's not the way this will go for me.
This isn't going to be the kind of thing that gets us ahead. If anything, this is the T-Mobile Sidekick of cybernetics. And even when the new iPhone of cybernetic neural interfaces emerge, it's still going to fucking suck.
We're 10,000 light years from the kind of thing I'd find compelling. Hard pass.
Light years is a measure of distance not time
I tried listening in and there were a lot of really intuitively strung-together tangents, each of which could be considered its own separate knowledge domain. I guess I'd say it was very ADHD-friendly, practically an ADHD machine, in that way. I had to give up on the video for now because I kept losing the thread while wondering about this tangent or that one. Will look for a summary later. (I do like that the corresponding gift of Musk's, the connective, big-picture thinking, is being made to work for its money though)
I remember demoing a game back in the 90s where you placed a headband on and controlled a stone on screen to cause it to rise and then maintaining its altitude. I’m sure it was very simple, however the germ was planted about mind/machine interfaces in me a while ago. I had read Neuromancer previously and this seemed the zeitgeist along with the 90s being the ‘Decade of the Brain’. I had read Patricia Churchland’s book The Computational Brain, and the take off of neural networks and wet interfaces was all the buzz.
There were a bunch of "alpha brain waves" toys for a minute there a while back. A friend of mine had the Star Wars Jedi one where you put a device on your head and then it detects "alpha waves" and controls a small fan in a clear plastic tube that "levitates" a ball. We figured out eventually that you could pin the thing to the max by reading a book while wearing the device, you didn't actually have to focus directly on the ball.
Yes, it was an alpha brain wave toy. I found the visual feedback to me being able to affect my body state strangely exciting. I can see how the Transhumanist movement is fueled by experiences and technologies such as these.
I am excited thinking of all the type of experiences NeuraLink will enable. I am confident it will still take another decade, but the video games of the future will be wild.
I'd be more interested in the immediate application of improving cochlear implant technology with these threads. But then I'm deaf in one ear so I'm biased.
I'm glad this tech is starting to move along, but, boy, is this stuff at a crude and barbaric level. I can't imagine putting this crap in my head.
For a paralyzed person trying to use Neuralink to control an external device, how does the neural signal decoding distinguish between just thinking of a movement and the actual volition of that movement? You would not want to actuate the external device just because the user is thinking of the movement (e.g. from reading a book, watching a video, or planning for the future).
As long as that activity is part of the training corpus for the neural interpreter it shouldn't be a problem. Just make sure you put in controls during training links any other machine learning system.
Their projection dates seem a little far fetched, to have a clinical trial by 2020 without yet having started an FDA process
Far fetched is an under-statement. It's not possible unless they're planning to do human trials of some non-invasive technology related to the larger product.
This is not a drug, but medical device technology. Therefore, I believe this would qualify for the FDA's pre-market Breakthrough Device Program[1] clearance which, if I'm reading the guidelines correctly, says they can have an expedited decision within 45-60 days from submission[2].
This is under the umbrella of the FDA's Medical Device Safety Action Plan[3] overhaul.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/how-study-and-market-you...
[2] https://www.fda.gov/media/108135/download
[3] https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/cdrh-reports/medical-device-sa...
This is under the umbrella of the FDA's Medical Device Safety Action Plan[3] overhaul.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/how-study-and-market-you...
[2] https://www.fda.gov/media/108135/download
[3] https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/cdrh-reports/medical-device-sa...
If this goes like The Boring Company reveal a couple of months ago, I expect them to show off a 640x480 CRT monitor.
gotta link to that?
The hyperloop references seem misguided, but otherwise this about covers it: https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-says-hyperloop-tunnel-is-now-...
Any word on whether they've solved the glial response problem?
Brain implants almost always end up useless long-term because they are attacked and surrounded as foreign objects by the brain's defense system.
I admittedly skimmed the neural sewing paper, but from what I saw there wasn't anything new in there about preventing this.
Brain implants almost always end up useless long-term because they are attacked and surrounded as foreign objects by the brain's defense system.
I admittedly skimmed the neural sewing paper, but from what I saw there wasn't anything new in there about preventing this.
They mention this in the video, they are solving it by making the implants extremely small and having similar material properties to the brain.
Yeah it seems Nicolelis lab already did incredibly advanced work in rats and apes.
But moving to humans with a weaker immune system and a much higher risk of rejection was always extremely difficult/not possible.
It'll be interesting to see how they solve this.
But moving to humans with a weaker immune system and a much higher risk of rejection was always extremely difficult/not possible.
It'll be interesting to see how they solve this.
There has been research in using massive amounts of neural recordings to infer the underlying sensory cognitive neural network this year:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/553255v2
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/neco_a_0121...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016502701...
If that neural lace materializes there will be a lot of new material for that particular mental playground.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/553255v2
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/neco_a_0121...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016502701...
If that neural lace materializes there will be a lot of new material for that particular mental playground.
[deleted]
The thing that most excites me about a breaktrough in BCI technology is its possible applications for Brain-to-Brain interfaces a la Asimov (I / We / Gaia) or Ramez Naam (Nexus 5; Very similar to what Neuralink talked about circa 2017)
I've been reading "Carbide Tipped Pens" which is a collection of 17 Hard sci-fi short stories. One of them has a very similar idea. Can't remember which one but I'll post the author if I remember later.
Why aren't these implants based from designs of CMOS camera sensors?
Take a CMOS sensor, and put a metal spike on top of every pixel (easy with current processes). Now you have 10 million measurements that you can take at 240fps...
Take a CMOS sensor, and put a metal spike on top of every pixel (easy with current processes). Now you have 10 million measurements that you can take at 240fps...
Because you need to be inside the brain, not just on the surface. And the electrodes need to be flexible, not stiff spikes. So with those constraints, their current approach makes sense. They’ll get to millions of electrodes in the future.
Spikes that are under 1um thick end up being very flexible.
Because the metal spikes would puncture blood vessels in the brain. Part of the surgical robotics is focused on individually inserting spikes while avoiding blood vessels. Watch the presentation.
These metal spikes would probably be only 20 um long and 1um wide, so not long enough to puncture blood vessels.
The potential of this...You could wire up a group of dancers and everyone would mimic the lead dancer perfectly. China would absolutely love to engineer a feeling of nationalism that would be always switched on and monitored. People could have telepathic sex. You could pay for NBA All Brain Access and feel what it's like to dunk as LeBron, live. Your speech could be auto-corrected as well as your outlook in life through your AI personality filter. You could switch between cartoon theme and real-life theme as you go about your day. Healthy food could taste amazing...
Neuralink has a very impressive founding team and I have been periodically checking their homepage for any updates. I am excited to see what they have been working on for all this time.
Ok. so "sewing machine" is a robot to place sensors without hitting blood vessels. These sensors have some wires that are attached to an induction loop of some kind for recording. Seems feasible. Density is variable and probably dependent on brain region (speculative). I imagine the next step is deep learning to classify neural/sensor patterns into specific actions.
Yes exactly. They showed an iphone screenshot of the training process. They also need to make the device wireless (the current device is not).
[deleted]
This was such an interesting and inspiring presentation. After watching it, I actually think that CD Projekt should change the title of their video game -- bump the year a decade or two. Maybe Cyberpunk 2050?
Totalitarianism countries will use this to take surveillance and censorship to a new level. Now, people can't speak freely. In the future, people will not be able to think freely ...
Any quick explanation of what they do before the stream starts?
Elon Musk talks a bit about it in the infamous Joe Rogan podcast: https://youtu.be/ycPr5-27vSI?t=1124
BCI intersected with Nanotechnology from the last time they released some info, circa 2017. (A BCI on a pill? Can't know for sure what they are up to)
From the video -- do they have the capability to fab custom silicon on a small scale? What kinds of setups / suppliers are there / order of magnitude price?
My collegue once managed to fry a computer through the USB-port. I wonder what would happen if you accidently fed too much power to this brain USB-port.
"Check PSU Cable" :)
01:32:19 https://youtu.be/r-vbh3t7WVI?t=5539
01:32:19 https://youtu.be/r-vbh3t7WVI?t=5539
Impressive. 3072 channels is likely sufficient to pass very reach embeddings. At a level of a long sentence or a small image.
Who thinks Elon Musk is going to walk around with one of these in a world full of hackers who aren't buying it?
reminds me of the movie Brainstorm (1983) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085271/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
so, it is like one step closer to movie Upgrade (2018)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upgrade_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upgrade_(film)
They should use holography light instead of probes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awADEuv5vWY
[deleted]
This is fantastic!
I predict a surgical procedure.
Hard pass from me.
Skip to 1:30:00
For all the criticisms of Musk, and recent wackiness, it's moments like these that I thank our lucky stars that there are people like him on this earth. It just seems like these days there are so few people thinking about the long-term future of the human race.
I love it that his solution to the "AI terminator" problem is making a brain-computer interface so that we can have a fighting chance when AI takes off.
I love it that he wants to help us kick our addiction to non-renewable fossil fuels.
I love it that he wants to make us a two planet race so that we don't have all our humanity eggs in one planetary basket.
Thank you Elon.
I love it that his solution to the "AI terminator" problem is making a brain-computer interface so that we can have a fighting chance when AI takes off.
I love it that he wants to help us kick our addiction to non-renewable fossil fuels.
I love it that he wants to make us a two planet race so that we don't have all our humanity eggs in one planetary basket.
Thank you Elon.
There are, and have been, many many people working on all of these problems long before Elon Musk (the tech announced today at Neuralink is entirely built on work that was done by people at UCSF and UC Berkeley, and even that is an iteration on technology that was developed by scientists over the past several decades). Neuralink the company was founded by eight people other than Musk. It's a huge disservice to all of these people to give Musk the credit for their work.
Musk sits in a weird position where his unique blend of controversy keeps him in the headlines and ensures he gets linked to these technologies, but that does not mean he is responsible for nor deserves the credit. It could be argued that his "ability" to constantly land in the limelight draws more attention (and thus progress) to these issues, but others would argue that we would be even further along if not for the constant controversy he creates.
Musk sits in a weird position where his unique blend of controversy keeps him in the headlines and ensures he gets linked to these technologies, but that does not mean he is responsible for nor deserves the credit. It could be argued that his "ability" to constantly land in the limelight draws more attention (and thus progress) to these issues, but others would argue that we would be even further along if not for the constant controversy he creates.
One speaker is a professor from UCSF who studied the brain's processing of motor signals. He explicitly credited Musk for having the right vision and the long term planning, and that's why he left his position after 16 years to come work with Neuralink.
No one credits Musk for solving bugs with the software on his products, or creating these brain-computer interfaces. But he can assemble the team to do, and motivate them to keep moving and progressing pretty aggressive schedules. And he frequently gives credit to his team (and doesn't sit there patting himself on the back).
No one credits Musk for solving bugs with the software on his products, or creating these brain-computer interfaces. But he can assemble the team to do, and motivate them to keep moving and progressing pretty aggressive schedules. And he frequently gives credit to his team (and doesn't sit there patting himself on the back).
> And he frequently gives credit to his team (and doesn't sit there patting himself on the back).
Yes, the list of authors on the whitepaper they released is "Elon Musk & Neuralink". I guess his team should be thankful.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6204648-Neuralink-Wh...
Yes, the list of authors on the whitepaper they released is "Elon Musk & Neuralink". I guess his team should be thankful.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6204648-Neuralink-Wh...
As the other commenters said, that's not a research paper. Here is a link to an actual research paper where (at least some of) the authors work for neuralink.
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(18)30993-0
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(18)30993-0
thats a white paper , not the research paper (which is what ppl will read). You can also read it the other way around: He wanted to credit the entire Neuralink team, without claiming to be part if it or leading it
It would have read that way if the author list had simply said 'Neuralink'. He is definitely positioning himself as the leader here.
Fred Wilson has a blog post where he outlines the role of a CEO like this:
>A CEO does only three things. Sets the overall vision and strategy of the company and communicates it to all stakeholders. Recruits, hires, and retains the very best talent for the company. Makes sure there is always enough cash in the bank.
Based on everything we saw in the Neuralink livestream, it seems like Elon is nailing all three of these. Doesn't mean he deserves all the credit, but it mean he's doing his job.
>A CEO does only three things. Sets the overall vision and strategy of the company and communicates it to all stakeholders. Recruits, hires, and retains the very best talent for the company. Makes sure there is always enough cash in the bank.
Based on everything we saw in the Neuralink livestream, it seems like Elon is nailing all three of these. Doesn't mean he deserves all the credit, but it mean he's doing his job.
> He explicitly credited Musk for having the right vision and the long term planning, and that's why he left his position after 16 years to come work with Neuralink.
How do we know that's why, vs his estimation of Musk being the right kind of showman to get a lot of investment.
How do we know that's why, vs his estimation of Musk being the right kind of showman to get a lot of investment.
> How do we know that's why, vs his estimation of Musk being the right kind of showman to get a lot of investment.
Because it is what he explicitly said. As I pointed out in my parent comment.
Of course I'm sure access to capital plays a role. Otherwise it's just someone with a good idea and no money. A meh idea but lots of money also wouldn't attract these kinds of people.
Because it is what he explicitly said. As I pointed out in my parent comment.
Of course I'm sure access to capital plays a role. Otherwise it's just someone with a good idea and no money. A meh idea but lots of money also wouldn't attract these kinds of people.
What people explicitly say is their reasoning isn't necessarily their reasoning; especially in an investor/recruiting hype presentation.
Technological R&D doesn't get you anywhere on its own. It's an important prerequisite, sure, but just as necessary is the next step, where a company is formed to commercialize/productize novel research through years of schlepping through market education and government safety trials, to pave the way for the technology to become a "safe" product category for other companies to follow on to. There are many technologies stuck between these two stages—thoroughly "researched and developed", but not yet commercialized.
People like Musk (and the people he co-founds these companies with) are important because they're taking nascent product categories that are "stuck" in the R&D stage with little attention being paid to them, and directing large-scale consumer demand onto them in a way that brings profit-driven industry interest—and therefore industry talent—into the picture. Even if it's not Musk's offering that end up winning the space, these efforts redefine the public perception of the category in a way that means that every company in the space wins.
(For another equivalent example: the creator of Bitcoin did more for smart contracts by creating one platform that lead to competitor platforms that actually had smart-contract support, than a thousand academic smart-contract systems projects ever could have.)
People like Musk (and the people he co-founds these companies with) are important because they're taking nascent product categories that are "stuck" in the R&D stage with little attention being paid to them, and directing large-scale consumer demand onto them in a way that brings profit-driven industry interest—and therefore industry talent—into the picture. Even if it's not Musk's offering that end up winning the space, these efforts redefine the public perception of the category in a way that means that every company in the space wins.
(For another equivalent example: the creator of Bitcoin did more for smart contracts by creating one platform that lead to competitor platforms that actually had smart-contract support, than a thousand academic smart-contract systems projects ever could have.)
... and there were people working on electric cars and rockets before Musk came along too, but somehow he just manages to nudge things along a lot more than the average person!
[deleted]
Our media perpetuates and encourages erratic behavior. People like/love Musk because he does it, for science!
I personally have no problem with him.
I personally have no problem with him.
I am also an optimist and a techno-utopian...
BUT:
1. This has not been tested on a single human yet, as it has no FDA approval.
2. Preliminary trials in full quadripilegic patients are several away (these are also not yet approved)
3. Should these trials succeed, this will still not be available as an elective procedure for healthy people (that will take much more time)
3. The skull exists and is a hard barrier that is not going away. A decade or so from now, should this be approved as an elective procedure, patients will have to have a hole drilled in their skull (note that most people find LASIK invasive, even after decades of successful surgeries)
4. Patients will also have to become comfortable with thousands of fibers being inserted (albeit in a minimally invasive way) through brain tissue by an automated surgical robot.
5. Should the procedure be successful, patients should finally, at long last, be able to control a mouse, or keyboard, or smartphone using their brain and imagining the movements instead of using their hands.
There is perhaps, a cyberpunk future where crime syndicates mine Bitcoin in the brains of their victims, where malware pipes gigabytes of extremist political memes in seconds through the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of young adults.
Maybe that will come one day, but this technology is only using the signals generated by the brain to control a mouse and keyboard. This existed twenty years ago in chimpanzee studies. The real innovation here is in materials science and surgery.
This is amazing multi-disciplinary science in the pursuit of advanced medicine, and we should be applauding it for what it is.
So, thank you Elon for funding this -- but more importantly, thanks to all the scientists, researchers, and engineers who have dedicated their lives the advancement of our science and medicine.
I will not be electing to undergo this surgery in the future.
BUT:
1. This has not been tested on a single human yet, as it has no FDA approval.
2. Preliminary trials in full quadripilegic patients are several away (these are also not yet approved)
3. Should these trials succeed, this will still not be available as an elective procedure for healthy people (that will take much more time)
3. The skull exists and is a hard barrier that is not going away. A decade or so from now, should this be approved as an elective procedure, patients will have to have a hole drilled in their skull (note that most people find LASIK invasive, even after decades of successful surgeries)
4. Patients will also have to become comfortable with thousands of fibers being inserted (albeit in a minimally invasive way) through brain tissue by an automated surgical robot.
5. Should the procedure be successful, patients should finally, at long last, be able to control a mouse, or keyboard, or smartphone using their brain and imagining the movements instead of using their hands.
There is perhaps, a cyberpunk future where crime syndicates mine Bitcoin in the brains of their victims, where malware pipes gigabytes of extremist political memes in seconds through the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of young adults.
Maybe that will come one day, but this technology is only using the signals generated by the brain to control a mouse and keyboard. This existed twenty years ago in chimpanzee studies. The real innovation here is in materials science and surgery.
This is amazing multi-disciplinary science in the pursuit of advanced medicine, and we should be applauding it for what it is.
So, thank you Elon for funding this -- but more importantly, thanks to all the scientists, researchers, and engineers who have dedicated their lives the advancement of our science and medicine.
I will not be electing to undergo this surgery in the future.
The applications are very very speculative and far-reaching. I think, by the time the applications are feasible there will probably be a way to do minimally invasive craniectomy. The neural implant is impressive work, but anything beyond that is probably going to be very different than is speculated.
> There is perhaps, a cyberpunk future where crime syndicates mine Bitcoin in the brains of their victims, where malware pipes gigabytes of extremist political memes in seconds through the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of young adults.
Not bad, man. I'd read that book.
Not bad, man. I'd read that book.
> I love it that his solution to the "AI terminator" problem is making a brain-computer interface so that we can have a fighting chance when AI takes off.
This seems like making a well-intentioned medical application that incorporates latest research findings and likely addresses historical downsides of the field (e.g. scarring issues with long term deployment of invasive BCI).
I don't see how that is anywhere close to being related to some sci-fi "AI terminator" scenario though. If you want to go into some cyberpunk fanfic about Musk you can just turn this application around and spin a "AI is now able to fry our brains out" narrative, which is neither helpful, nor realistic. This AI FUD is so weird to me, it's much more likely to be killed by badly written auto pilot for fancy cars, a failed operation to get your brain USB plug, a malicious application of AI by companies or state actors in areas like mass surveillance and population control... than it is for a real, strong AI to suddenly emerge, become sentient and decide that humanity cannot be trusted.
This seems like making a well-intentioned medical application that incorporates latest research findings and likely addresses historical downsides of the field (e.g. scarring issues with long term deployment of invasive BCI).
I don't see how that is anywhere close to being related to some sci-fi "AI terminator" scenario though. If you want to go into some cyberpunk fanfic about Musk you can just turn this application around and spin a "AI is now able to fry our brains out" narrative, which is neither helpful, nor realistic. This AI FUD is so weird to me, it's much more likely to be killed by badly written auto pilot for fancy cars, a failed operation to get your brain USB plug, a malicious application of AI by companies or state actors in areas like mass surveillance and population control... than it is for a real, strong AI to suddenly emerge, become sentient and decide that humanity cannot be trusted.
What evidence is there that AI is going to "take off" and threaten humanity somehow? How are people imagining this process would happen?
The reverse argument made here is usually the turkey fallacy. For turkey, all logical evidence points to a continuously improving quality of life, with every need met and a constant availability of food. There’s no evidence that it’s going to be eaten this thanksgiving, so any effort in building turkey-computer neural links is dismissed off hand as being a waste of time.
How does this analogy apply specifically to AI, though? There's also no evidence that God is going to come and pronounce his judgement on us, so any effort in prayer and pious living is often dismissed off hand as being a waste of time. Should non-believers in God reconsider their ways given their knowledge of the turkey fallacy?
Think that’s the premise of Pascal’s wager, that if you simply multiply cost with expectation believing in God is a better bet.
Of course with something like a general AI all bets are off. This neural link think is a horribly bad defense, because of all possible defenses this is the one that could give the AI a direct connection with your brain.
Of course with something like a general AI all bets are off. This neural link think is a horribly bad defense, because of all possible defenses this is the one that could give the AI a direct connection with your brain.
This is mostly a media hype IMO, but I have a bias as I graduated in machine learning and still work in AI.
For an analysis of the state of the field and the surrounding media attention, I highly recommend this blog post by Zachary Lipton [1].
[1] http://approximatelycorrect.com/2017/03/28/the-ai-misinforma...
For an analysis of the state of the field and the surrounding media attention, I highly recommend this blog post by Zachary Lipton [1].
[1] http://approximatelycorrect.com/2017/03/28/the-ai-misinforma...
There are two ways:
1. paperclip optimizers where a very smart computer you tell to do one menial task like producing as many paperclips as possible or proving a mathematical theorem can turn into a catastrophy as that computer turns all iron on earth into paperclips or into computers that all try to find a solution to the theorem. This also includes computers that we task to "protect" humanity coming to the conclusion that humans having power to kill each other is mankind's biggest threat.
2. crazy would-be dictator who wants to rule over the world and tells an AI to do it or kill all humans or something else.
TLDR: First way: forgetting machines to tell to not kill humans (or not doing it in an effective manner). Second way: some really shit individual explicitly telling machines to kill humans.
The first danger is one we already face: basically since we've had machines there have been accidents with them, also ones involving casualties. In general, the more we care about avoiding casualties the less likely they are. However, it only takes one super intelligent paperclip optimizer to "break lose" so given the high amount of possible casualties, there needs to be a lot of care taken to prevent even one such event.
The second danger needs to be coped as well. One could do two things: very slow deployment of super-AI capabilities at the start, while building AIs that can defend governments and somehow encoding into them how the government works (to prevent parts of the government from using that machine in a coup). The same computers will prevent revolutions though, so I guess we'll see less and less of those. You can think of variations of those ideas like AIs that only enforce asimov's laws or only make sure that we don't use any weapons more powerful than $weapon on each other.
What I don't understand though is how neuralink will help with coping with those threats.
1. paperclip optimizers where a very smart computer you tell to do one menial task like producing as many paperclips as possible or proving a mathematical theorem can turn into a catastrophy as that computer turns all iron on earth into paperclips or into computers that all try to find a solution to the theorem. This also includes computers that we task to "protect" humanity coming to the conclusion that humans having power to kill each other is mankind's biggest threat.
2. crazy would-be dictator who wants to rule over the world and tells an AI to do it or kill all humans or something else.
TLDR: First way: forgetting machines to tell to not kill humans (or not doing it in an effective manner). Second way: some really shit individual explicitly telling machines to kill humans.
The first danger is one we already face: basically since we've had machines there have been accidents with them, also ones involving casualties. In general, the more we care about avoiding casualties the less likely they are. However, it only takes one super intelligent paperclip optimizer to "break lose" so given the high amount of possible casualties, there needs to be a lot of care taken to prevent even one such event.
The second danger needs to be coped as well. One could do two things: very slow deployment of super-AI capabilities at the start, while building AIs that can defend governments and somehow encoding into them how the government works (to prevent parts of the government from using that machine in a coup). The same computers will prevent revolutions though, so I guess we'll see less and less of those. You can think of variations of those ideas like AIs that only enforce asimov's laws or only make sure that we don't use any weapons more powerful than $weapon on each other.
What I don't understand though is how neuralink will help with coping with those threats.
1. Unplug the paperclip optimizer. Blow it up. The problem with the less wrong idea is they keep ascribing more and more godlike powers to AI to counter very common objections to technology. Somehow the entire thing becomes a godzilla like self-sustaining organism that ignores anything we can do or throw at it, and has magical powers. Meanwhile it seems apparently tha major websites can have outages if people go on summer vacation and the interns are on duty.
2. They can do that now. What would an AI do differently that couldn't be accomplished by conventional weapons? How would it do so without using said weapons or any sort of thing that could be done so without it?
The AI thing is just a secular form of the rapture, a particular variant of existential dread for people with little to no religious belief.
2. They can do that now. What would an AI do differently that couldn't be accomplished by conventional weapons? How would it do so without using said weapons or any sort of thing that could be done so without it?
The AI thing is just a secular form of the rapture, a particular variant of existential dread for people with little to no religious belief.
> Somehow the entire thing becomes a godzilla like self-sustaining organism that ignores anything we can do or throw at it, and has magical powers. Meanwhile it seems apparently tha major websites can have outages if people go on summer vacation and the interns are on duty.
Sure, the risk is low right now, but the more powerful computers we can build, the larger the potential risk is. Before you manage to press the off button the computer might already have deployed a bioagent or killed countless lives with drones.
> They can do that now. What would an AI do differently that couldn't be accomplished by conventional weapons?
A military made out of humans is subject to human failings. It is generally a big problem that soilders shoot in the general direction of the enemy to not get punishments for not shooting but miss on purpose. As an extreme example, the nazis had to give lots of free alcohol to their soilders so that they'd continue shooting civilians and burying them under new bodies before they have even died. They later invented gas chambers as an easier method to kill masses of people. Compared to humans, an AI is doing what it is being told to. If you tell it "Kill all humans" it will do it.
Sure, the risk is low right now, but the more powerful computers we can build, the larger the potential risk is. Before you manage to press the off button the computer might already have deployed a bioagent or killed countless lives with drones.
> They can do that now. What would an AI do differently that couldn't be accomplished by conventional weapons?
A military made out of humans is subject to human failings. It is generally a big problem that soilders shoot in the general direction of the enemy to not get punishments for not shooting but miss on purpose. As an extreme example, the nazis had to give lots of free alcohol to their soilders so that they'd continue shooting civilians and burying them under new bodies before they have even died. They later invented gas chambers as an easier method to kill masses of people. Compared to humans, an AI is doing what it is being told to. If you tell it "Kill all humans" it will do it.
Here's one (Sam Harris') take on it: https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without...
Same guy that doesn't know Hume Guillotine(1) or anything about philosophy and is a charlatan with his meditation app
(1)https://youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI
(1)https://youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI
https://samharris.org/response-to-critics-of-the-moral-lands...
Do you have anything more substantial to say than ad hominem? Like a response to the video I linked instead of grinding your unrelated axe against the guy?
Do you have anything more substantial to say than ad hominem? Like a response to the video I linked instead of grinding your unrelated axe against the guy?
The title of the book: How Science Can Determine Human Values is literally in contradiction with Hume's Guillotine which any philosophy 101 should be aware of.
>Do you have anything more substantial to say than ad hominem?
Nope, because the title of the book says it all
>Do you have anything more substantial to say than ad hominem?
Nope, because the title of the book says it all
I'm interested in hearing more about about being a charlatan with the meditation app especially considering, as far as I remember, you can get it for free by just asking.
There's two types of people you meet who are into mindfulness: high practicioners (monks) and yoga guy from Los Angeles who is "kinda" into mindfulness but not really
I can only go by what he and other people close to him say but he says he used to do plenty acid and been to retreats in asia for months and months (cumulatively) during his early life and seems to be good pals with people like Joseph Goldstein (who studied under asian teachers in 60s/70s). He has probably experienced all kinds of stuff.
Point being, if you get (at least some of) what there is to get then does it matter where your body was born or what it looks like? Is it a bad thing that western born people are bringing this (buddhist/hindu/jain) thought to the west?
I would revise your statement that there are the monastics who dedicate their lives to this, the lay people who practice and the commoditized 'yoga' as exercise/stretching folk/peddlers who are far removed from its spiritual components.
Point being, if you get (at least some of) what there is to get then does it matter where your body was born or what it looks like? Is it a bad thing that western born people are bringing this (buddhist/hindu/jain) thought to the west?
I would revise your statement that there are the monastics who dedicate their lives to this, the lay people who practice and the commoditized 'yoga' as exercise/stretching folk/peddlers who are far removed from its spiritual components.
Eh, if you use the word "mindfulness," you are yoga guy. A monk isn't mindful, he is mortifying his flesh to practice the tenets of the religion he believes in so fiercely enough he is willing to self-imprison to follow it better. What you see as mindfulness is just the surface results of winning that struggle. It is very possible to lose it instead, and monks are often open about the dangers of monastic life.
I think people really don't get religion in this sense. The radical, wild, anarchic aspects of it. Mindfulness is more just a wish for stoicism in religious guise; the idea of being not stoic, and weeping over your prayers in a cell because you feel the weight of the world's sin and know that the time is short will not often occur to people.
I think people really don't get religion in this sense. The radical, wild, anarchic aspects of it. Mindfulness is more just a wish for stoicism in religious guise; the idea of being not stoic, and weeping over your prayers in a cell because you feel the weight of the world's sin and know that the time is short will not often occur to people.
>Eh, if you use the word "mindfulness," you are yoga guy
Everything in Buddhism and meditation surrounds around mindfulness/sati/awareness you call it.
>A monk isn't mindful, he is mortifying his flesh to practice the tenets of the religion he believes in so fiercely enough he is willing to self-imprison to follow it better.
Monks have to cultivate the 8 fold path which includes right mindfulness so saying he isn't doesn't make him monk. And also wow that sounds so disrespectful and ignorant.
Everything in Buddhism and meditation surrounds around mindfulness/sati/awareness you call it.
>A monk isn't mindful, he is mortifying his flesh to practice the tenets of the religion he believes in so fiercely enough he is willing to self-imprison to follow it better.
Monks have to cultivate the 8 fold path which includes right mindfulness so saying he isn't doesn't make him monk. And also wow that sounds so disrespectful and ignorant.
What exactly is wrong with being a regular person who practices mindfulness? Are the benefits they receive not legitimate in your eyes?
The philosophy I have been exposed to through meditation has helped me better understand how the ego can cause problems. It seems you are rather attached to the idea of a very pure, austere study of meditation and associated philosophies. There are other valid ways of approaching such things that you are unjustifiably disregarding.
Alternatively, you could look at it as someone simply being earlier on their path, and provide encouragement instead of ridicule.
The philosophy I have been exposed to through meditation has helped me better understand how the ego can cause problems. It seems you are rather attached to the idea of a very pure, austere study of meditation and associated philosophies. There are other valid ways of approaching such things that you are unjustifiably disregarding.
Alternatively, you could look at it as someone simply being earlier on their path, and provide encouragement instead of ridicule.
>What exactly is wrong with being a regular person who practices mindfulness
Completely normal.
Sam Harris is a charlatan for preaching it using "his program": https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18774981-waking-up
Spare me this book under 4 stars rating.
Completely normal.
Sam Harris is a charlatan for preaching it using "his program": https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18774981-waking-up
Spare me this book under 4 stars rating.
> Completely normal
Ok, good to hear. That's not the impression I got from your comment about the LA yoga guy.
> Sam Harris is a charlatan for preaching it using "his program": https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18774981-waking-up
What's wrong with the book? I read it and thought it was, on the whole, interesting and useful. Obviously it isn't perfect.
How specifically is Sam a charlatan? What falsehoods does he claim about himself regarding meditation?
Ok, good to hear. That's not the impression I got from your comment about the LA yoga guy.
> Sam Harris is a charlatan for preaching it using "his program": https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18774981-waking-up
What's wrong with the book? I read it and thought it was, on the whole, interesting and useful. Obviously it isn't perfect.
How specifically is Sam a charlatan? What falsehoods does he claim about himself regarding meditation?
>problem is making a brain-computer interface so that we can have a fighting chance when AI takes off.
our fighting chance is EMP.
our fighting chance is EMP.
That's like saying a lions chance against humans is the big teeth. It's dangerous in a particular context, sure, but misses the fundamental assymmetry that took humans from scared or lions to existential threat to lions.
what is EMP?
Apparently Paul Allen's Experience Music Project has been a secret weapon against malevolent AIs all along!
Or if you're no fun, it's an electromagnetic pulse.
Or if you're no fun, it's an electromagnetic pulse.
An electromagnetic pulse, created when a nuclear bomb explodes, that some say will destroy all electronic devices within hundreds of miles that haven't been specifically designed to be EMP resistant.
> so that we can have a fighting chance when AI takes off.
there wouldn't be a need for this without rampant, myopic introduction of AI. why not just stop that irresponsible "innovation"?
there wouldn't be a need for this without rampant, myopic introduction of AI. why not just stop that irresponsible "innovation"?
These sorts of criticisms always ignore the prisoner's delima for the sake of expression of moral indignation.
There is no stopping individual agents in a system from doing what helps them most without an authoritarian at the top. Mostly, those authoritarians come with even worse problems so we're left with this imperfect world.
I'd love to see comments on hn not focused on self righteousness and instead realize that there is no one guy at the top that you just have to scream really loud at.
There is no stopping individual agents in a system from doing what helps them most without an authoritarian at the top. Mostly, those authoritarians come with even worse problems so we're left with this imperfect world.
I'd love to see comments on hn not focused on self righteousness and instead realize that there is no one guy at the top that you just have to scream really loud at.
[deleted]
pretty cool press conferance, but i dont think its going to take off until Elon develoos Genital Link. :3
Summary: 3k+ electrodes in the test device, each thread is 1/10 of a human hair, they connect directly to custom chips that are bundled in a 4x4mm package. The test one has a USB-C port but in humans it would be implanted under the skin - a single 2mm incision with minimal bleeding - and communicate wirelessly.
Looks like their main technology is the surgery robot and the custom chips. This is truly out of science fiction and will be an incredible revolution if it works.