127
Has Musk-rat started a nanotech company yet?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
127 points (93.2% liked)
TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name
3732 readers
689 users here now
/c/TenFoward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!
Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.
~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Remember that diversity and coexistence are Star Trek values. Any post/comments that are racist, anti-LGBT, or generally "othering" of a group will result in removal/ban.
~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.
~ 3. Use spoiler tags. This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.
~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.
~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.
~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.
~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon'
~ **8. Political commentary is allowed, but please keep discussions civil. Read here for our community's expectations.
Fun will now commence.
Sister Communities:
Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!
Honorary Badbitch:
@jawa21@startrek.website for realizing that the line used to be "want to be added to the sidebar?" and capitalized on it. Congratulations and welcome to the sidebar. Stamets is both ashamed and proud.
Creator Resources:
Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)
Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
I'm glad they're having success, but this is not a use case for neuralink. It's a use case for brain-computer interfaces in general. Research in BCIs is ongoing and a very relevant topic of research, but usually research institutes can't indiscriminately kill monkeys for this. I am very excited about this tech (my PhD is tangentially related to it) but wish it was being developed by literally any research institute not owned by Musk
I'm also pretty sure you can do this without implants...
Yeah, you're not wrong, per se.
I might be completely stupid and wrong about this and everything, but I don't think I'm too far off.
Essentially Neuralink is just very high tier EEG, electroencephalography, measuring brainwaves.
You can buy yourself a kit for 100 bucks or so. But... you'll get like a two-channel device with a few sensors, which won't really have any sort of accuracy. You could go for a professional model for a few thousand or something, and have good sensors and a few dozen channels.
They'll still be outside the skull though.
I just looked this up the other day, and uh, guess the amount of channels on Neuralink?
"Neuralink has developed an application-specific integrated circuit to create a 1,536-channel recording system. This system consists of 256 amplifiers capable of being individually programmed, analog-to-digital converters within the chip and peripheral circuit control to serialize the digitized information obtained."
So I don't know what would be a good comparison to the scale difference here. Perhaps one is like listening to someone having sex in the next room while there's also loud music playing (limited channels, poor-ish signal), and the other is actually being in that room, having that sex yourself (100x the channels, signal pretty much straight from the source.)
Someone smarter can correct me where I went wrong.
This technology is fascinating, I'm just so annoyed/apprehensive Musk owns the company doing the pioneering work.
Having a thousand, or a hundred, or a dozen channels means nothing if you can't individually control them. You can use a hundred channels to sample a brain, but if you're playing chess (As in the famous video) all you need is "up/down, left/Right, click". That's 3.
The brain is incredibly complicated and there is a lot of noise. More channels do make a huge difference. It's not like each channel is associated to one direction or something and you only need 4. Also, to add to the other users point, the signal strength is much stronger inside than out since the skull acts like a barrier.
Your example is the equivalent of saying you don't need a keyboard because you can use a computer with just the arrow keys and the spacebar.
Although BCIs are already a thing, the difference between what you can do with external compared to internal ones is probably quite vaste at our current tech level and will probably lead to better external ones at the same time.
You also don't control the electrodes, you just receive the signal from them and they are obviously all being sampled.
Well you'll need three states which are easily translated to the commands.
The more channels you have, the easier it is tor recognise any specific configuration of brainwaves.
It's not like thoughts are as easy to pinpoint as spatial coordinates. You don't really decide what your specific brainwave output will be when you focus on thinking "up". It will be a combination of different brain waves, and the more accurately you can measure that, the easier it is for the computer to pick up when you're thinking "up".
Try playing a tune with just three tones available to you, it'd be hard.
The technology isn't new, but the resolution sort of is.
Hell they used the tech in a House episode in like, 2009.
What do you mean "if you can't control them"? The channels are how many bands you're reading, and they are using quite fancy computers to do the reading. What's there to control? BCI is just a fancier interface than a keyboard, it's still only one-way, so I don't understand what you mean by "control" in this context.