Comment by carapace | Hacker News Reader

Comment by carapace | Hacker News Reader

It seems like a direct brain-to-speech approach would make more sense for this application (communication from paralyzed people.) This is sort of like trying to write with a theremin, eh?

I'm still on the far side with this, I know, but whenever these BCI stories go by I am bemused. You connect a brain to a computer and then "train a neural network" on the computer side, that makes no sense. The sophisticated NN is on the brain-side, yes? With an integrated subjective UI already, yes? You do not need fancy implants or hardware to "talk" to your machine, galvanic response and (now) micro-IMUs (inertial measurement units, one on each finger) are plenty of bits-per-second for a subjective Think-to-Type experience. Use hypnosis, it's easy, to program your brain to output a byte by changing the angle of your fingertips and then twitching the thumb to "clock" the data. Or just standard stenotype, it would likely be easier, eh?

You don't need fancy hardware or NN software (and especially surgery to stick electrodes in your brain) to "talk" to your machine with your mind, you already have all the technology you need "built in" to your nervous system. It's not even difficult to use. Literally the first thing I learned to do when I was studying (self-)hypnosis was setting up a binary "yes/no" signal (a finger twitch) from my unconscious mind to facilitate communication.

Anyhow, not to go on and on about it, the bottom line is when you connect a computer to a brain please remember that the brain is the fancier, more powerful "device", okay? You will waste less time. (I am not sure why I am not able or willing to try to make something out of this. I can talk to my computer well enough that I don't bother with BCI. ANd somehow the plight of these poor folks doesn't move me enough to do something. Am I a moral cretin? I'm seriously you guys. Should I try (harder) to get something going with simple hypnotic BCI systems? HN?)

All of that involved consciously causing physiological changes in your body for the computer to sense. Suppose this was a thought interface for an aircraft pilot. Physically they're already fully engaged in a demanding activity, what we need is to open up a new channel of communication from them to the computer in addition to their physical input. If they're focusing on twitching or changing the resistivity in their fingertips, that's going to interfere with their using their fingers to manipulate controls.

There are other similar situations, such as people in a coma that can't cause physiological changes. The point is to offload as much processing on to the computer, to make the process of communication as simple and direct for us as possible. Training ourselves to jump through mental and physiological hoops is the opposite of the point.

> All of that involved consciously causing physiological changes in your body for the computer to sense.

No, you missed the point. You use hypnosis so the physiological changes are done unconsciously; subjectively you just "think to type".

I totally agree. There is more than enough "unmapped" area on the motor & sensory homuncului[1] (creepy image warning) to be repurposed as an I/O channel by retraining the brain. In general, brains are plastic enough to remap senses like this[2] given a handful of months' work/practice. Adults are capable of learning ASL, for example, which uses completely different "output channels" from spoken language. Even when learning to drive, the car can start to feel like an extension of one's self (and I'm not a car person at all). Famously, people who become blind begin to develop better acuity in their other senses because of all the "freed up space" in the visual cortex (which I'm sure is an oversimplification, I'm not a neuroscientist).

We have so much raw data coming into our brains--via sight and sound especially, but surprising amounts via other senses as well--that I see little reason to add "additional senses" or outputs when we have rather high bandwidth already. Heck, my thoughts run ahead of my speech or typing fairly often, and both of those are pretty low-bandwidth channels.

One-hand chorded keyboards[3] are perennially reinvented by someone with an Arduino and a few buttons (not to belittle that work!) but you can't just pick up a chorded keyboard and type as fast as a regular one, so they are generally treated as a novelty. But if one spent as much time learning to use a chorded keyboard as they did a regular one, I'd bet they'd be just as fast. Perhaps the reason fluent computer users show little desire for better human-computer interfaces is that they are afflicted by a generalized form of baby duck syndrome[4]. To mix metaphors in a really confusing way, interacting with a computer with a keyboard, mouse, and monitor feels like using GNU nano: shallow learning curve, but it tapers off quickly. I wish I knew the Vim of HCI: I'd be willing to practice for years to adapt to it, to compute more efficiently for the rest of my life.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_remapping#Plasticity [3]: https://www.stavros.io/posts/keyyyyyyyys/ [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)#Baby_d...

You get it. :D

> the Vim of HCI

Now that is an evocative metaphor... cheers.

> I'd be willing to practice for years to adapt to it

Ah, but learn a little self-hypnosis and it won't take years.

I have a new tiny business selling custom computer peripherals: things like levers, crank-wheels, knobs, sliders, etc... for input, and odds and bods for output like sand-tables with a stylus on an arm, or lasers and mirrors to draw on a fading, photo-sensitive panel, etc. Mostly for fun, but also to support real innovation in HCI. :)

Maybe the connections are in reality electronic stimulants to release dopamine, serotonine, endorphin & GABA et. al. in the mix of your cocktail without using pharmaceuticals. Neural link is a big Pharma killer dressed as a pig. Use a NN in the feedback loop trained on your autocomplete output.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com