21–30 of 51 posts
I have a PhD student working on EEG audio decoding. We are presently focused on a simpler subtopic: the detection of consonance and dissonance in the brain as it listens to music.
> "It wasn't perfect, but 60% of the words were judged intelligible by testers" I don't understand this part. Are they trying to pull the audio of the words out of the brain or something? I'd think it would be easier to use a dictionary of words, and use some machine learning to try and pull out the most likely next word from the brain activity, in which case 100% of the words would be intelligible
what percentage of the words would be correct though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hit him with this $5 wrench until he tells us the password" XKCD 538
We normally do not accept people being hit with wrenches (or a contextual contemporary) in criminal justice trials.
> "It wasn't perfect, but 60% of the words were judged intelligible by testers" I don't understand this part. Are they trying to pull the audio of the words out of the brain or something? I'd think it would be easier to use a dictionary of words, and use some machine learning to try and pull out the most likely next word from the brain activity, in which case 100% of the words would be intelligible
>in which case 100% of the words would be intelligible what percentage of the words would be correct though?
Prediction: even if this requires surgery, unlocking inner thought will be used in criminal proceedings to establish guilt or attempt to be used to prove innocence. It will definitely be used unethically in military/intelligence interrogations until the law catches up.
Did a number go missing from this sentence? One accuracy rate was "74%", the other was "reduced but still above chance". Why leave things vague? All that accomplishes is that it makes me distrust the factuality of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> are there people with no intrusive thoughts whatsoever? There are people with no internal monologue whatsoever.
I think every verbal person has the ability to “speak” phrases in their mind; people without an internal monologue (as is, I suppose, the case for me) just don’t need / tend to do that with every thought they have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We normally do not accept people being hit with wrenches (or a contextual contemporary) in criminal justice trials.
Being hit with a wrench seems less invasive and even preferable compared to mind-reading brain surgery.
Prediction: even if this requires surgery, unlocking inner thought will be used in criminal proceedings to establish guilt or attempt to be used to prove innocence. It will definitely be used unethically in military/intelligence interrogations until the law catches up.
The worst: ads.