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

Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

tvnz.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 88 posts

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#11

Post by gnramires »

One of the things I wish the most technologically is simply being able to record my thoughts. Sometimes in the middle of a stream of thought going back and putting it on paper, taking notes disrupts the process somewhat. Also obviously translating visual imagination and recollection is more difficult (more for someone that wasn't trained artistically). My memory is imperfect too and I've forgotten a few ideas I thought were amazing because I didn't write them down at the right time.

I, for one, welcome the mind-reading devices.

I'm sure it'll be limited by physical contact so I'm not much worried about some science fiction scenarios. However, the implications for police are indeed worrisome, enough it should warrant specific legislation as soon as possible (i.e. non-consent mind reading should be made a grave crime, and a war crime, as soon as the technology is available)

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#12

Post by PH01 »

bwood wrote: post #3

All the talk of implants makes me wonder what's possible without a direct physical link to the brain. Like using an EEG to measure brain signals and transform them into instructions, images, etc. Here's some research where they use the EEG to train a model that reconstructs what people are seeing in their visual cortex [0] All the reconstructions are super low resolution, but I wonder how much better they can get? I'…

Doesn't reconstruction like this rely on the decoding mechanism being trained on the original images? This doesn't scale to reconstructing any visual image, only to differentiating between those the decoder has already seen.

It doubt very much that it reconstructs from the visual cortext. That is a non-trivial task with fMRI which has a much higher SNR than EEG.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#13

Post by VRay »

offtop5 wrote: post #9

This scares me a bit. Let's say you have certain nero indicators which indicate person X may do Y . Do you we then minority report lock up people. At the same time , it's going to be amazing for people in a coma or unable to communicate. We could have a fantastic amazing world, where we effectively live forever via some type of matrix like interface.

We're already there on foreign soil with Palantir's monitoring software. You don't need to read people's brains to invasively spy on them and arrest them without traditional probable cause

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#14

Post by Justsignedup »

Heh. Remember back in the day when pacemakers were being hacked remotely because admin passwords weren't even changed from the default, on top of outdated wireless protocols? Oh right that's today!

Hardware makers often aren't good at software, not to mention software updates. And even that gets wonky, like when Microsoft update got hijacked.

Point is, if we can't get IoT 100% right, or even 90% right, how can we trust IoT with physical interfaces into our bodies? That's the problem. And then what happens if the company who made your implant goes out of business? What do you do when those updates stop? Look at cellphones, supporting a cellphone for 2 years is too much for most hardware makers, they rather never update it.

Point is, even if the tech is 100% possible, we're way too far from business setups that allow for this to happen.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#16

Post by johnnybaptist »

I work at OpenBCI. It's been great getting to work with Gabe and the Valve team. Can't overstate how unique they are as partners on a project like this. Also cool to see OpenBCI (sortof) in the top 10 today :)

Happy to answer any questions people have about OpenBCI https://openbci.com/

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#17

Post by PH01 »

bognition wrote: post #5
bwood wrote: post #3

All the talk of implants makes me wonder what's possible without a direct physical link to the brain. Like using an EEG to measure brain signals and transform them into instructions, images, etc. Here's some research where they use the EEG to train a model that reconstructs what people are seeing in their visual cortex [0] All the reconstructions are super low resolution, but I wonder how much better they can get? I'…

Most if not all of the very interesting signals are in the 100hz - 10Khz range. These signals are also very low voltage so. Add in that the skulls acts as a low pass filter and you end up in a situation where you just will not be able to recover the information needed to decode what the brain is doing at the required resolution. You can use ECoG which is like EEG but placed on under dura-mater (a protective bag aroun…

What signals do you mean? Brain waves measured in EEG typically range from 0.5 Hz and above.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#19

Post by skocznymroczny »

VikingCoder wrote: post #8
johnnybaptist wrote: post #2

big fan of his point that the technology is moving so fast that it doesn't make sense to lock-in and go mass market yet

This sounds like the spaceship problem. Whenever you build a spaceship to take people to another planet, it will be passed by a later ship which was built to go faster.

Reminds me of my games of Civilization. Should I spend few more turns to build additional engines to my spaceship, or should I launch it now and risk being overtaken by a faster ship.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#20

Post by matz1 »

Justsignedup wrote: post #14

Heh. Remember back in the day when pacemakers were being hacked remotely because admin passwords weren't even changed from the default, on top of outdated wireless protocols? Oh right that's today! Hardware makers often aren't good at software, not to mention software updates. And even that gets wonky, like when Microsoft update got hijacked. Point is, if we can't get IoT 100% right, or even 90% right, how can we tru…

The trick is I never expect anything to be 100% right, or even 90% right. Even if they promise to be 100% right.

Either accept that it can broke or always have a backup plan.

>then what happens if the company who made your implant goes out of business?

The company goes out of business doesn't always mean the product stop working anymore.

If the product stop working then I'll look for removal/replacement.

Post reply on HN