Devices that connect brains to computers are increasingly sophisticated
undark.org
undark.org
There were some follow up studies to the visual decoding thing which is getting more sophisticated w/ diffusion models and other ML techniques improving the accuracy of semantic and visual coding - I think a few were presented at NEURIPS this year
spooky thought - using the output from a Huth-style semantic decoder into the Eddie Chang-lab/UCSF vocal synthesizer?
2) I would say, the neuroethical part of things is growing in importance. What's available in the lab still is way more sophisticated than the devices out in the field - DBS, rTMS, ambulatory EEG, but it's worth having that discussion.
3) Given the above - almost a decade after Obama BRAIN - the lab demonstrations are getting better and better...but none of them have joined DBS, rTMS, ambulatory EEG as something in routine use - i.e. I cannot order an fMRI decoder on a patient in any practical shape or form, or get it covered by Medicare....
I found the article a bit puzzling as it made the researchers seem almost panicked about the neuroethical part. This was either: (1) a journalistic technique (2) the capabilities are progressing far faster here than I have seen, and the article didn't really do a good job of going into it.
I would like it to be based on real progress, but I don't think the article really described the recent progress well.
> mind-reading computer technology finally works
> "oh no, it actually works - wait, isn't this bad? think of all the ethical implications! what have we done?"
It's not the most dangerous thing that man has ever built, but it is dangerous, and it's probably the most uncomfortably personal.
The following was encouraging:
> In late 2021, the scientists began to run new experiments. First, they were curious if an algorithm trained on one person could be used on another. They found that it could not — the decoder’s efficacy depended on many hours of individualized training. Next, they tested whether the decoder could be thrown off simply by refusing to cooperate with it. Instead of focusing on the story that was playing through their headphones while inside the fMRI machine, participants were asked to complete other mental tasks, such as naming random animals, or telling a different story in their head. “Both of those rendered it completely unusable,” Huth said. “We didn’t decode the story they were listening to, and we couldn’t decode anything about what they were thinking either.”
We dodged a bullet with the 'polygraph' but times have changed and I could see something like that being accepted.
We already have 'fire forensics/arson investigation' which is complete bullshit and just so pseudoscience as well as a lot of other bullshit science around forensics and DNA and questionable 'experts'.
That coupled with the unreliability of witness statements, the bullshit around sniffer dogs and it's a wonder there are any guilty people in prison at all.
> Meanwhile, as CBS Seattle first reported, some scientists are claiming they can “hack” information out of a subject’s brain, and engage in lie detection, by using a simple “brain computer interface”—biofeedback brain-wave readers that are increasingly used to control computers and are available off the shelf for only $300. According to the scientists, a “guilty knowledge test” based on a particular brain wave, the P300, “has a promising use within interrogation protocols that enable detection of potential criminal details held by the suspect.”
> Five or so years ago, we looked at this issue in great depth—consulting with experts, hosting a forum, and filing a Freedom of Information Act Request. Around that time several companies were aggressively marketing the technology as lie detectors and for other purposes. One of our concerns was that the technology might be applied by our national security agencies against suspects in the “war on terror,” who would then be mistreated based on inaccurate results. Our FOIA request attempting to find out if that was true did not yield any answers.
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/high-tech-mind-r...
Maybe one can't shield their true thoughts if they don't know they're in a simulation...?
If we could tap into someone's brain then we could simply ask a question and find out if they're recalling an event from memory, or whether a statement like "do you know where she is" is truthful. More advanced modelling of someones brain activity can even pick out specific thoughts so there's various ways to extract information from people as this technology progresses.
Although my guess is that none of this is required. An advanced AI model could probably learn your to understand your subconscious muscle / eye movements well enough to extract information without anything more invasive. For example:
1. "Do you know where she is" – AI says he's thinking yes
2. "Is she in the US?" – AI says he's thinking yes
3. "Is she in Texas" – AI says he's thinking yes
And so on until you have the information you need.
I do not think this would work on me. Not even slightly. And I'm having some real trouble understanding why you think it would work on you. When people claim to be able to beat lie detector tests, it's about involuntary reactions and their ability to voluntarily control them. I don't think I have ever been able to affect how much or little I perspire or my heart rate.
But my cognition? It is effortless. How will you "pick out my thoughts" when my thoughts are on pause?
> 2. "Is she in the US?" – AI says he's thinking yes
AI says he's thinking about poodles, and how much effort is put into trimming their hair when they might just be sheared bald like sheep. He's also thinking about use human feces in a stew and feeding it to the PTA at their next potluck. Now he's thinking about DROP TABLE ai_prompt_index...
AI OFFLINE.
Seriously, like, if I ask you a question, you can't help but blurt it out into your mind? Christ, I have superpowers and apparently never knew it.
That oughta hold off the brain parsers for a while.
Although I draw my line a bit further down (and am pro-cybernetics for various reasons), I can see why invasive augmentation is where some people do. I don't plan on surviving some treatable cancers if I get diagnosed simply because merely existing as a worn out husk from the strain of the treatment is not worth the burden on my family and myself. Other cancers have a treatment that is worth trying to fight through. Managing a pacemaker is just not a fight they want to have.
Many people don't have a reference point for what it's like to not be afraid of death.
Is this a good example of the philosophy of "My Body, My Choice" that should pervade health care today?
If you critically read the thread, my astonishment is the stated reason: a distrust in the technology. There's nothing "informed" about that choice, especially if you're looking at the data (I'm not sure how else you can be informed about such a choice).
Getting a pacemaker is also arguably NOT an invasive surgery. Many people who get them leave the hospital the same day. As far as emergency surgeries go, it's very low on the ladder. A routine appendectomy is more invasive.
However, what baffles me is that the problem you see with a pacemaker is the fact that it could malfunction and kill you. Is that the right understanding? And if so, why is that worse than your body malfunctioning and dieing on its own?
The doctor came into my room, gave me the option of getting an ICD implant. My first 4000 thoughts were hell no. He explained that otherwise I could just drop dead at any moment, and in all likelihood I wouldn't be the 1/1000 that survived. And if I were to survive I might just be a vegetable next time. I very hesitantly accepted after a lot of thought. BTW this is my 20s that this happened.
Since then more than 1 person has died due to a software error with my device, and I have not been shocked once. I get "patched" all the time to rule out certain errors. But the odds of me dying without the device are still much higher than the odds of my dying with it. More importantly I fully believe the standard of care / investigation into my problems have increased significantly because I opted into having the device. Is that fair? Not really. Is that realistic? Yep, Boston Scientific wants data to make better devices.
I'm in a country where the device was free to install, all care after is entirely free, which definitely helped make the decision. But if there's never a situation in which you'd consider such a compromise I'd say you've probably never woken up in the ICU with no memory of the past 20 days.