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day when pacemakers were being hacked remotely because admin passwords weren't even changed from the default, on top of outdated wireless protocols?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…
Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology
51–60 of 88 posts
Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology
#52I think VR could use non-fresnel lenses and better ways to adapt your vision in the headset, ironically the DK1&2 had lenscups which now are found in zero headsets. I keep my old glasses that are smaller to be able to fit them in my vive, but that makes development inconcievable: Remove terminal/monitor glasses and put on old glasses and then the headset every time I need to test something in VR. Nope I'm not doing t…
Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology
#53Heh. 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day when pacemakers were being hacked remotely because admin passwords weren't even changed from the default, on top of outdated wireless protocols?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…
Even worse, what if you have artificial eyes and one day the manufacturer blocks your vision functionality because you did something they disagree with politically? It used to be your account would get banned, now with cancel culture you can be banned from participating in media and society altogether, tomorrow maybe your ability to participate in your own body's functionality may be subject to the whims of the censo…
If you got eyes that required the internet to function you made a poor and dangerous choice regardless of whether the public or some company wants to punish you for some perceived public behavior. If you got eyes that required some company on the internet's continued acceptance of you as a client, you made an even worse choice.
Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology
#54Heh. 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day when pacemakers were being hacked remotely because admin passwords weren't even changed from the default, on top of outdated wireless protocols?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…
Like everything else, it will be imperfect, there will be scandals, the occasional lawsuit, and we'll muddle through.
Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology
#55https://marshallbrain.com/manna
(It explores implants and using them vs. being used by them.)
Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like everything else, it will be imperfect, there will be scandals, the occasional lawsuit, and we'll muddle through.
Software scandals don't end up with people dead or extorted at gun point. Yet.
But you're right, software bugs don't generally result in lives lost, at least directly.
Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology
#57I'm not a huge anime person, but there's one I've watched that seems a bit relevant. In _Accel World_, they wear this thing on their neck called a "Neurolink" and basically are able to connect to things like the Internet or private networks (school, home, hospital) wirelessly with it. I believe it takes over signals coming to and from the brain. But they also have a wired connection mode so they can do that or do a s…
Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are signals up to 10Khz generated? I thought the absolute refractory period of a neuronal action potential limits the rate at which they can fire.
From start to finish, an individual action potential lasts about 1ms, followed by a few millisecond refractory period. There is probably not much biologically-relevant activity happening at faster timescales. However, one often wants to "sort" spikes so that those arising from individual neurons are grouped together. To do so, you need to sample fast enough to capture the shape of the action potential, not just the f…
Obviously if you want to sample a signal you have to use a higher frqeuency.
Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology
#59I thought that it was interesting that Gabe was using The Matrix as a comparison for BCIs since that movie was a warning about what this kind of tech could bring, but he did express a lot of concern around more real-world ramifications around what this technology could bring if it wasn't properly used or secured. What he was describing then reminded me more of the movie Strange Days where people would use neural conn…
Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology
#60Heh. 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…
Updates of any sort to the SW are generally very difficult to do. The certification process for any medical device is hard enough, let alone for implants, let alone for life-critical implants, let alone the recertification process for an already implanted life-critical device. This is why you'll see sonogram machines running XP still, completely disconnected from the larger internet [0].
The questions listed are mostly already considered and have many mitigation strategies per the regulatory agency in charge. There are many other questions that people like the FDA demand answers to.
One thing about the business side is that risk/reward ratio. In medical development, FDA authorization typically occurs at the 10-12 year mark for a product (though it varies widely). Meaning that your start-up only gets the go-ahead to make money after about a decade of investment. That said, once you get to sell, you have an effective monopoly on the market. Hence the costs of new drugs and devices being so insanely high; it's that risk/reward imbalance on the business side.
[0] Another reason why IoT medicine is very difficult, among many.