Jump to content

efaardvark

AF Member
  • Posts

    2,428
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    213

efaardvark last won the day on March 12

efaardvark had the most liked content!

Anime

  • Favourite Anime
    Lots. Off the top of my head (and in no particular order)...

    Ghost in the Shell
    プラネテス (ΠΛΑΝΗΤΕΣ)
    Any "real" science fiction actually
    Angel Beats!
    Clannad: After Story
    Your Lie In April
    Pet Girl of Sakurasou
    境界の彼方
    しんせかいより
    Spice and Wolf
    ことうらさん
    FLCL (original)
    Any Miyazaki/Ghibli
  • Favourite Genres
    Comedy
    Fantasy
    Mystery
    Romance
    Sci-Fi
    Slice of Life
    Space Opera
    Rom-Com
  • Favourite Character Type
    Kuudere

Waifu/Husbando

  • Image
  • This is my
    Waifu

Profile

  • Location
    Someplace between Santa Monica and Sedna.
  • Occupation
    Data systems engineer
  • Interests
    reading (SF), electronics, science, engineering, space, computer programming.. and of course anime.
  • Gender

Video Games

  • Favorite Video Game/Series
    Kerbal Space Program. Anything that you can craft or build in actually... Minecraft, Valheim, Cities: Skyline, Stardew Valley, Terraria, etc.....
  • Favorite Video Game Characters
    GLaDOS, Duke Nukem, Jebediah Kerman
  • Favorite Game Consoles
    PC Master Race - May our frame rates be high and our temperatures low.

Recent Profile Visitors

115,221 profile views

efaardvark's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Well Followed Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Very Popular Rare

Recent Badges

2.2k

Reputation

Single Status Update

See all updates by efaardvark

  1. Wow..

     

    1. Illusion of Terra

      Illusion of Terra

      I think my two cents might actually be relevant here 😂 My comment in one sentence would be that we are not even close to being ready to actually implement something like this in any reliable way.

      As it happens I both studied and now work in a closely-related field (although my focus has changed from empirical to theoretical/philosophical). I was quite enthusiastic in the beginning, but I can say with quite a high level of confidence afters spending some years in that field that we don't understand the brain. We have accumulated a lot of both empirical data and models, and we do know a lot more then just 100 or even 10 years ago. But we are far from knowing how the brain works when it comes to any function that is a bit more complex than simple neural networks or even action potentials (even those are very tricky if they deviate from the prototypical neurons usually studied).
      When it comes to BMI specifically, there is some interesting stuff going on right now. One of the research groups at my university is working in a particular field regarding BMI which got me interested in it, and we even established a new research group dealing with philosophical problems related to it (although I would not say that I have much expertise when it comes to the technical aspect of BMI). What Neurolink is showing here is promising in achieving the goal of activating certain sets of neurons but their possible application (at least as presented here) a bit oversimplifying how certain functions are represented in the brain (especially when it comes to localization). The basic idea is not new, but how they are implementing ('wireless chips') is something that has been notoriously difficult (but has been researched for quite a few years).

      When you take these aspects together, I think even if we successfully implanted even much more complex devices, we are still far from knowing how to use them in order to achieve something we want ("to tap into those representations") in any reliable way (meaning without serious dysfunction or non-functions). This can be used for research which might one day enable a much more successful implementation of course, but we should be realistic as to the actual mid-term achievements we can expect from it, given the current state of knowledge. This is disregarding the huge ethical issues concerning malfunctions and risks.

      So yeah, interesting stuff but as it often is with publications or innovations, the actual immediate usefulness is still quite 'hypothetical'.

    2. efaardvark

      efaardvark

      I totally agree that we don't understand the brain.  It has had literally hundreds of millions of years to evolve, and genetic algorithms are notorious for producing idiosyncratic designs.  I'm reminded of one research project that used a large chip with an array of identical circuits that was used to develop some software using a "genetic" process to evolve the software.  Each bit of software was slightly modified/mutated and assigned one of the array elements to use, then evaluated against the software design criteria.  Evolve, repeat.  It worked extremely well, with the best software being roughly 5x as good as the software developed using more conventional means.  Then they tried to figure out why.  Turns out that the "evolved" software had figured out that the supposedly identical and independent hardware cells were NOT compeletly independent and was actually using the undocumented interaction between cells to achieve its results.  :)

      So yeah, there have been and will be moments of confusion and misunderstanding on a science and engineering level.  Politics and public sentiment will no doubt also play a big role beyond that.  (Though both will be decades behind in actual understanding that's never really mattered before.)  That said, there is progress being made as well.  I view this as basic research.  There are goals, and the researchers know enough to think and expect those goals are attainable.  I tend to agree, but there's a HUGE grey area (no pun intended) that they need to navigate through before they get where they want to go, and plenty of opportunity for things like frustration, serendipity, and even tragedy along the way.  It will not be easy or quick.  It will definitely be interesting, and very likely extremely useful, though perhaps not exactly in the way(s) expected at this point. 

      I do think that the gross motor areas they are targeting now is a good first step.  They're not trying to put anything INTO the brain, just read the motor signals that the brain is outputting.  That's ambitious enough, but also limited enough, that they can make progress towards their goals in a reasonable time frame, and if they reach those then they'll be in a good position to move on from there.  Clearly though Musk is thinking beyond that however.  "Having the option to merge with AI is important."   😮 

    3. Illusion of Terra

      Illusion of Terra

      the grey area pun was hilarious 😂

      I totally agree. And I think targeting something like the motor cortex is a pretty reasonable starting point since it at least seems to be less complex than, say, the hippocampus (or at least the parts they are investigating).
      This reminds me of people who lack substantial parts of their brain but show little to no impairment. A senior neuroscientists in our department told us of a case from someone who literally lacked most of what we consider to be a full brain but showed almost no symptoms. Such cases make brain science quite difficult because of the huge flexibility it portrays. But this is not to disregard the huge advancements, both in research and treatment, made in the last decades.

      Merging with AI, at least what people would usually understand, is however something I don't think will happen in our lifetime. Would be extremely interesting though to see what kind of effects it would have.

×
×
  • Create New...