Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 94 posts

Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.

#11

Post by moocow01 »

I would say rather the capability may be 5 years away. Whether consumers want it - I'm skeptical. I knew someone who for reasons I won't go into had a computer that they had to control with their eyes (basically has a webcam that tracks the eyes and moves the cursor and then clicks when you wink). It made me realize the further integration of computing control and a human's anatomy/biology can create more problems because there is a lack of a filtering mechanism. When you type on a computer you choose what your computer does by making deliberate actions rather than your computer monitoring you and interpreting your actions. The problem with the latter is there are many things you do that does not involve your computer... pick up the phone, throw a ball for your dog, talk to a coworker, etc. When your computer is monitoring you for input it never knows when the action is for it and when it is not. So in the case of the computers based on eye control, the experience is very problematic when you have to look somewhere else for any reason.

Now taking it a step further I can't even imagine how out of control a computer would be based on someone's mind. Our minds randomly fire off thoughts non-stop - its actually incredibly hard to concentrate on one deliberate thing for a long time (if you've ever tried meditation you realize this very quickly). How a computer could filter actions for it and actions that are just the randomness of the brain seems like it would be incredibly difficult in that there really isn't a definitive line there at all.

Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.

#12

Post by cullenking »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #2

A little fanciful I think. The stuff about generating your own energy through captured kinetic energy is silly. My house has a 20KW feed - thats about 27 horsepower. On my bike I produce a tiny fraction of a horsepower. Its many orders of magnitude off.

You definitely produce more than a tiny fraction of a horsepower :) I have a watt meter on my bicycle, and I can easily average 250 watts for an hour ride. Well, easily meaning sweating profusely and worked at the end of it, but still, that's 1/3rd of a horsepower for an hour. I can put out 1 horsepower for a few seconds, and I am not a great cyclist...

Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.

#13

Post by pmuhar »

I dont see this happening, or being very accurate if it does. I dont know about you guys, but my mind thinks about something new every few seconds, and one tiny piece of a thought will turn into a whole new though. Its all very random and for a computer to be able to understand and filter that seems a little too sci-fi.

Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.

#14

Post by mikecsh »

moocow01 wrote: post #11

I would say rather the capability may be 5 years away. Whether consumers want it - I'm skeptical. I knew someone who for reasons I won't go into had a computer that they had to control with their eyes (basically has a webcam that tracks the eyes and moves the cursor and then clicks when you wink). It made me realize the further integration of computing control and a human's anatomy/biology can create more problems be…

You seem to be describing a problem that needs to be solved rather than a situation meaning that there is anything wrong with the technology. I used to have speech control turned on on my computer - you can set it to listen to everything which is basically the situation you describe with all its problems. Alternatively you can ask for it to listen for a keyword or only to listen when you press a key. I imagine similar solutions will present themselves for brain-computer interfaces.

Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.

#15

Post by dkersten »

blhack wrote: post #7

Linkbaity headline, there. "Mind reading" already exists kindof sortof maybe good enough to cnet to write an article about. This is at the top of my Christmas list: http://emotiv.com/ In fact, here is a comparison of consumer Brain Computer Interfaces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain%E2...

One of my best friends just finished his phd in brain computer interfaces and "mind reading" totally already exists (for certain very specific definitions of "mind reading").

Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.

#16

Post by moocow01 »

mikecsh wrote: post #14
moocow01 wrote: post #11

I would say rather the capability may be 5 years away. Whether consumers want it - I'm skeptical. I knew someone who for reasons I won't go into had a computer that they had to control with their eyes (basically has a webcam that tracks the eyes and moves the cursor and then clicks when you wink). It made me realize the further integration of computing control and a human's anatomy/biology can create more problems be…

You seem to be describing a problem that needs to be solved rather than a situation meaning that there is anything wrong with the technology. I used to have speech control turned on on my computer - you can set it to listen to everything which is basically the situation you describe with all its problems. Alternatively you can ask for it to listen for a keyword or only to listen when you press a key. I imagine simila…

I think there is some truth to that but I'd say the one difference between speech recognition and brain recognition is that speech is a voluntary action you control, while your thoughts have a largely involuntary component to it. Involuntary meaning when someone says "an idea just popped into my head" - the idea seemingly was not an action deliberately triggered. Think if while you were "mind typing" an email and suddenly the thought "god I hate my boss" popped into your head. If the filtering mechanism of the computer was poor, your computer might, assuming it was being helpful, shoot off an email to your boss saying "god I hate you". I guess what I'm saying is the way by which you could filter your own thoughts to be interpreted by your computer or not seems like an incredibly difficult proposition.

Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.

#18

Post by brown9-2 »

I think it says something about this "prediction" that most of the text on the IBM page about it (http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2011/12/the-next-5-in-5-mind-...) is:

Vote for this as the coolest IBM 5 in 5 prediction by clicking the “Like” button below.

Join the Twitter conversation at #IBM5in5

Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.

#19

Post by dholowiski »

zyb09 wrote: post #9

Well I guess you could link brain patterns to thoughts, but how do you gonna read them without a 5 ton MRI machine?

Who's to say a MRI machine has to weigh 5 tons 5 years from now? I imagine people once said "Sure it's great to store your recipes in a computer, but who wants to do that on a room sized computer?"

Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.

#20

Post by cjfont »

dkersten wrote: post #15
blhack wrote: post #7

Linkbaity headline, there. "Mind reading" already exists kindof sortof maybe good enough to cnet to write an article about. This is at the top of my Christmas list: http://emotiv.com/ In fact, here is a comparison of consumer Brain Computer Interfaces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain%E2...

One of my best friends just finished his phd in brain computer interfaces and "mind reading" totally already exists (for certain very specific definitions of "mind reading").

Most likely not same definitions that come to someone's mind when they read it within a sensational headline such as this one.
Post reply on HN