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

If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

1393.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#91

Post by krackers »

econ wrote: post #55
bamboozled wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any actual science behind binaural beats? They do nothing in my experience…

There use to be one Google video (out of many) that would completely fix my migraine in 3 minutes. Used it about 200 times for that. Hangovers, lack of sleep and spontaneous headaches. At other times it just gave great clarity, very refreshing regardless of the time of day. I didn't use headphones. I had the link at the top of my blog menu. It was that important. When Google video shut down I forgot to download it. C…

Do you have a link to that video? You could check internet archive, or see if some other person had downloaded it

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#92

Post by skeledrew »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #65
skeledrew wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I successfully used it during college (over 10 years ago) to regulate my general brain state, particularly at deadlines. I mainly used beats to maintain focus, trigger creativity/reflection and for power naps. Got me through some tough times.

How can you tell it is not a placebo? I guess it's just weird for me to think that it seems to do absolutely nothing to me, yet some people claim effects?

Even if it's a placebo, that it got the job done is what matters. But how would I even test Ig it was a placebo effect? I already have the experience of not being able to go the lengths I did with it, without it. Like I really drove myself to meet some bad deadlines, and paid for it several days after; I couldn't drive myself like that otherwise (I don't drink coffee, energy drinks, etc).

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#93

Post by skeledrew »

embedding-shape wrote: post #69
skeledrew wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I successfully used it during college (over 10 years ago) to regulate my general brain state, particularly at deadlines. I mainly used beats to maintain focus, trigger creativity/reflection and for power naps. Got me through some tough times.

I did the same thing around 20 years ago, but with just drum and bass, nothing "binaural" about it. Might work any genre of music, as long as you like it :) YMMV

Even taking 20-minute naps (although they sometimes became about an hour, as I'd be so out of it that I extended the schedule)?

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#94

Post by neuah »

rdgthree wrote: post #90
neuah wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're conflating one question with another. The "why" in question is why altering neural activity in that way results in clinical effects. It is not the "why" TMS alters neural activity.

I appreciate that you feel this way, but the mechanisms behind exactly which neural circuits are activated by TMS are simply not yet fully understood. From 2024: > Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive, FDA-cleared treatment for neuropsychiatric disorders with broad potential for new applications, but the neural circuits that are engaged during TMS are still poorly understood. [0] https://journals…

Again, different question. We know, fundamentally, how TMS causes stimulation/suppression of neural activity, and it does not require magnetoreception. Look at it this way: we don't fully understand how SSRI's cure depression, but we do know their primary target and that their mechanism of action is mediated through that primary target.

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#95

Post by cwillu »

mykowebhn wrote: post #37
cwillu wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Wouldn't” is being used in the logical-conditional sense, not in the sense of willingness, requesting, nor opinion. It's literally “What's the reason that the machinery of the brain doesn't use this mechanism, given this proof that the effect could in principle be used?”. A similar question can be made for quantum mechanical interference in the brain (which to be clear I feel is adequately answered by “the brain is…

Using your explanation, let me try this on an example, say the extinction event that killed off many dinosaur species. If some mammalian species were able to survive this extinction event and subsequently flourish, why wouldn't dinosaur species? Not sure that works for me. I'd put "couldn't".

It may not work for you, but you're literally arguing with the dictionary here.

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#96

Post by embedding-shape »

skeledrew wrote: post #93
embedding-shape wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the same thing around 20 years ago, but with just drum and bass, nothing "binaural" about it. Might work any genre of music, as long as you like it :) YMMV

Even taking 20-minute naps (although they sometimes became about an hour, as I'd be so out of it that I extended the schedule)?

Indeed, if I feel like crashing out, sink a quick espresso, put on some ambient drum and bass on the TV and take a 20-30 nap in the sofa, works every time.

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#97

Post by Lapsa »

renewiltord wrote: post #42
Lapsa wrote: post #38

whenever I remind about mind reading - I get down voted and called schizophrenic. it's worse - tech is being actively used to sway large groups of population

That’s because that’s obviously mind writing not mind reading.

fuck you

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#98

Post by lgas »

bitwize wrote: post #22
lgas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not 100% sure I'd call that a hallucination, but it's close enough and interesting enough that I'm happy to stand corrected.

When improper use of a statistical model generates bogus inferences in generative AI, we call the result a "hallucination"...

I was referring to the dead salmon in the study seeming to show increased activation in the brain and spinal coord.
Post reply on HN