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

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#61

Post by tashoecraft »

farias0 wrote: post #36
johnnybaptist wrote: post #16

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/

What is the timeframe you imagine for us to see the first consumer BCI-based products? Gabe seems to talk a lot about "inserting" data (like feelings) into the brain, instead of reading it. Is the technology really there already? Can we reliably read data from the brain (i.e. using it as input for a digital system)? And regarding inserting, what is the coolest thing you've done that you can share with us?

Considering I own Neurosity's Notion: https://neurosity.co/, which is a consumer BCI based product, I'd say a couple years ago.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#62

Post by tartoran »

rowanG077 wrote: post #48
tartoran wrote: post #31

> the experiences that you will have are things that you will be created and edited for you [..] > sleep will now become an app that you will run where you say I need this much sleep, I need this much REM I find this to go in a bizarre awkward direction. We as humans have self regulating capabilities that are to be tapped with some "self work". Is that a bad thing? Why are we trying to change that and create an app t…

Please tell me in great detail how I can go to sleep within 15 minuten of laying in bed. I'm very open to self work.

You need to learn to wind down. You can't expect to use your brain intensely and then shut off. But you can start by lowering the light, relaxing, stop using electronic devices, etc. (though listening to something unexciting does induce sleep). I also induce sleep by forced repeated yawing. Every couple of forced yawns trigger a real one, and with that some sleepiness. Another exercise I do is to imagine I lift my arms/legs up and let them fall by my side, helps me to relax my nervous system. I've done some meditation in the past and it helped as well but I don't actively do it before bed but you can absolutely try. Another thing that may or may not work for you is white/pink/brown noise. I prefer quiet if I could get it, sometimes that is impossible, e.g. having a window facing car traffic so in that case white noise can reduce the intensity of sudden sounds. So there is no formula but a bunch of habits really do help.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#63

Post by johnnybaptist »

farias0 wrote: post #36
johnnybaptist wrote: post #16

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/

What is the timeframe you imagine for us to see the first consumer BCI-based products? Gabe seems to talk a lot about "inserting" data (like feelings) into the brain, instead of reading it. Is the technology really there already? Can we reliably read data from the brain (i.e. using it as input for a digital system)? And regarding inserting, what is the coolest thing you've done that you can share with us?

Right now, OpenBCI makes products that only handle the "read" side of the equation.

As far as "writing" back into the brain, the coolest thing I've seen was the "BrainNet" project from University of Washington which used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/07/01/play-a-video-game...

The science and tech is advancing very fast, but I think it's not accurate enough to be in everyday use yet as a controller for devices. 90% accuracy sounds great in a paper, but imagine if your mouse clicks or keystrokes didn't register 1 out of 10 times.

What feels way more likely is that we'll see biometric data being collected by more consumer tech devices (cellphones, laptops, headphones) and used as one of many inputs to improve software applications and operating systems. Could EMG or EEG data be used to improve iOS autocorrect and reduce fat finger mistakes? That's a mundane application for crazy tech, but it's the kind of thing that I think will be a necessary intermediate step in us learning how to use these types of signals in everyday ways.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#64

Post by corysama »

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…

So, everyone needs to go back and watch the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex series. In that world, pretty much everyone has a few enhancements, visual and audio overlay options are pretty much universal. Having your equipment hacked is a super rare, state-actor-level event. But, the story is focused on people who deal with events of that magnitude, so it happens all the time in the plotline.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#65

Post by LeifCarrotson »

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

I don't think that's quite right - it's more that they're a lab and not a product manufacturer, so they can't decide to go mass-market.

Even if they decided that they want to go public with a virtual keyboard/mouse/controller and virtual heads-up display that you use by wearing an electrode net, the current team would not be able to make that pivot. End users won't be debugging Labview sketches, spending weeks training a neural network to recognize virtual keystrokes, or shaving spots on their scalp.

Personally, I expect that the V1 product here is approximately just that: a game controller. A few buttons, a pointer, maybe a little haptic feedback. It would be great for me if it supported text input and output faster than a keyboard and terminal, but I don't think that's likely to happen in an early version.

Even less likely is that we're going to jump straight to The Matrix. Valve needs to admit that, and be happy with a limited version, instead of letting it fizzle out in the lab.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#66

Post by mattkrause »

PH01 wrote: post #58
mattkrause wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So, to be clear, the signal of interest does not go above 1kHz. Obviously if you want to sample a signal you have to use a higher frqeuency.

Eh, it depends on what you're calling "the signal of interest."

A spike train, the output of a neuron, can reasonably be represented as a binary signal (1=spike, 0=no spike) at 1 kHz. In fact, I'd say this is nearly standard.

The neuron's membrane potential, a combination of its current inputs, intrinsic properties, and recent history, changes on faster timescales. Whatever processing the brain does probably does not use this information itself, but one probably wants access to it anyway for experimental and practical reasons.

The signal that an extracellular electrode picks up isn't that 1 kHz spike train. It's many of them mixed together and you'll need finer features to tell them apart. In other words, you can't just invoke Nyquist, sample at 2 kHz, and call it a day.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#68

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

rowanG077 wrote: post #48
tartoran wrote: post #31

> the experiences that you will have are things that you will be created and edited for you [..] > sleep will now become an app that you will run where you say I need this much sleep, I need this much REM I find this to go in a bizarre awkward direction. We as humans have self regulating capabilities that are to be tapped with some "self work". Is that a bad thing? Why are we trying to change that and create an app t…

Please tell me in great detail how I can go to sleep within 15 minuten of laying in bed. I'm very open to self work.

My wife has sever insomnia and is having more success with this than she did with prescription sleep aids.

https://choosemuse.com/

Being able to run "sleep" like its an app on your phone and directly control your brain would be life changing for us. I really hope it happens in our lifetime.

Re: Gabe Newell on brain-computer interface technology

#69

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

skocznymroczny wrote: post #19
VikingCoder wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In real life its so much more complicated than that. Because choosing to "send ship now" will result in huge amounts of progress in overcoming obstacles you could not have known about until you actual began the project.

It seems like the answer is always send out a test ship as fast as possible, knowing that it will absolutely be overtaken by a ship with more engines AND the knowledge gain from the first ship.

Post reply on HN