21–30 of 94 posts
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sud…
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...
the first thing I ever saw along these lines: recreating a cat's vision from brain sensors (1999)
This isn't just sophistry, but shows there are two problems, 1. to transmit information into and out of a mind; 2. to transform the information into a form that can be understood by another. A common language if you will.
This has analogues in relational databases, where the internal physical storage representation is transformed into a logical representation of relations, from which yet other relations may be transformed; and in integrating heterogeneous web services, where the particular XML or JSON format is the common language and the classes of the programs at the ends are the representation within each mind.
There's no reason to think that the internal representation within each of our minds is terribly similar. It will have some common characteristics, but will likely differ as much as different human languages - or as much as other parts of ourselves, such as our fingerprints. Otherwise, everyone would communicate with that, instead of inventing common languages.
Something like moving a cursor around by thinking about it, or thinking about making a call and having it happened requires a hell of a lot of bits of information to be produced by the brain computer interface. With the current state of the art we can distinguish between something like 2-6 classes of thoughts sort-of reliably, and even then it's typically about thinking of particular movements, not "call mom".
Importantly, what most people look for in the signal (the feature in machine learning terms) are changes in signal variance. And there are methods to detect these changes that are in some sense mathematically optimal (which is to say they can be still be improved a little bit, but there won't be any revolutionary new discoveries.) There may be other features to look for, but we wont be getting much better at detecting changes in signal variance.
Some methods can report results like a 94% accuracy over a binary classification problem. Such a result may seem "close to perfect", but it is averaged over several subjects, and likely varies between for example 100% and 70%. For the people with 70% accuracy, the distinguishing features of their signals are hidden for various reasons. And this is for getting one bit of information out of the device. Seems like such a device would need to work for everyone to be commercially successful.
In computer vision we have our own brains to prove that the problems can be solved. For EEG based brain computer interfaces, such proofs don't exist. There are certain things you probably can't detect from an EEG signal, meaning the distinguishing information probably isn't there at all. I'm easily willing to bet IBM money that who I would like to call can not be inferred from the electrical activity on my scalp. (Seriously IBM, let's go on longbets.org and do this.)
In a sense, speech is mind-reading: you can have in your mind what the writer had in their's. This isn't just sophistry, but shows there are two problems, 1. to transmit information into and out of a mind; 2. to transform the information into a form that can be understood by another. A common language if you will. This has analogues in relational databases, where the internal physical storage representation is transf…
How would we communicate with it? By directly linking our brains together? I don't see why it would have a direct translation into sounds.
"ATM machine" in an IBM video? I'm slightly disappointed.