Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 10th Oct 2011 19:55 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces Within the last few days we read the news about Apple's Siri AI personal assistant, and about a brain implant that lets monkeys control virtual limps & feel virtual objects. I believe that if someone is to also combine a few more technologies (e.g. high-res eyeware, appropriate operating system changes), we will be looking at the next user interface revolution, after the inventions of the computer mouse and touch interfaces.
Thread beginning with comment 492462
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
a load of garbage
by unclefester on Mon 10th Oct 2011 23:04 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Humans already have a spectacularly efficient brain/machine interface. It is called the hand. The hand provides spatial (proprioception) and tactile feedback, It is semi-autonomous with training.

Aviation has avoided using voice control because it is extremely inefficient, imprecise and slow compared with using the hand.

Music players, phones and tablets are already causing significantly higher rates of vehicular accidents and pedestrian deaths. This is because the human brain has virtually no ability to multi-task.

Reply Score: 2

RE: a load of garbage
by Eugenia on Mon 10th Oct 2011 23:10 in reply to "a load of garbage"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

First of all, voice was only mentioned as an alternative to brainwaves, so I don't see why you are mentioning just that. Secondly, many things require lots of clicks to do by using a hand, but it can be done instantly with a thought. Because the thought doesn't ask the computer to "click an icon", as the finger would do, but it actually carries out full actions. So if I want to incorporate a bicycle in my CGI scene or 2D pic, I simply think it. I transmit the mind picture to the app and the app figures out how to create it and display it. Using the hand to actually design such a thing in 3D, it can take about 3 days if it's to be done properly.

Edited 2011-10-10 23:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: a load of garbage
by Laurence on Tue 11th Oct 2011 00:10 in reply to "RE: a load of garbage"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

First of all, voice was only mentioned as an alternative to brainwaves, so I don't see why you are mentioning just that. Secondly, many things require lots of clicks to do by using a hand, but it can be done instantly with a thought. Because the thought doesn't ask the computer to "click an icon", as the finger would do, but it actually carries out full actions. So if I want to incorporate a bicycle in my CGI scene or 2D pic, I simply think it. I transmit the mind picture to the app and the app figures out how to create it and display it. Using the hand to actually design such a thing in 3D, it can take about 3 days if it's to be done properly.


But how are you going to program the computer to recognise those brainwaves?

It takes humans months of crawling before we can learn how to walk. That's months of learning the size and shape of our limbs and how to move them. But that's not all we learn. Everything is "recorded"; our thoughts and emotions during that process. Smells, sights, sounds and even tastes. All of that on top of the thought processes to actually just move our limbs the correct amount and in the correct order. All of that wired and rewired on the fly and in a totally unique pattern to how our brother / sister, our cousins, our parents and our friends. All of us wired differently.

So how on Earth will you program a computer to understand which neurons firing will relate to "paste bicycle image over CGI scene" and which relate to "oh I like that song that's playing on the radio as it reminds me of yoghurt"?

Rudimentary stuff like copy/paste from clipboard can be programmed in. But then you end up in a situation where you have to chain these rudimentary thoughts in sequence like you would clicks on a mouse. So you're no better off. In fact worse off as you're now having to program your thoughts into a computer before using it (which is currently a very lengthy process), you're having to learn how to control your own thoughts so you don't have the mental equivalent of a muscle spasm everytime a tampax advert comes on the TV thus resulting in your computer shutting down and you losing your work. And all you gain from this is the reaction time that would have been spent between thinking about moving your left finger and your left finger clicking the left mouse button.

As I said in my other epic post, the technology isn't the only hurdle we face with this ideology of yours - it's human development.

Edited 2011-10-11 00:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: a load of garbage
by unclefester on Tue 11th Oct 2011 04:08 in reply to "RE: a load of garbage"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

This is a common and completely incorrect assumption about how the human motor control (movement) system functions. The body's motions are controlled by continuous feedback loops provided by muscles, nerves and the motor cortex not by conscious thought. Movement is only consciously controlled when we initially learn a new task. Conscious thought is only used to initiate a movement eg the desire to go and get a cup of coffee. The actual movements are essentially an automated process.


In fact mind control is extremely tiring because there are no real feedback loops. It is equivalent to being perpetually stuck at the ability level of your first driving lesson.

The only realistic use for mind control or voice control is to allow disabled people to perform simple tasks.

Edited 2011-10-11 04:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: a load of garbage
by Neolander on Tue 11th Oct 2011 10:43 in reply to "RE: a load of garbage"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think this bike example wouldn't work, because thoughts are not detailed enough for the computer to know exactly what you want if you think "I need a bike there".

Have you ever faced a situation where you have something in mind, you think you know exactly what it is, but as soon as you want to explain it or create it (if it is a physical object), you hesitate and must think some more ? I believe this reflects the way our mind works. We have a blurry image, and we work out details as needed. Like with vision : we only see a huge load of blur, with a tiny neat region in the middle, but our brain and eyes silently fetch and parse details on demand, so fast we don't notice.

Again, maybe someone who knows more about the subject than me can confirm. But if it's true, adding a bike in a CGI scene would need as much attention to details with a mind control interface as with a mouse. It would remain very lengthy, because although the brain-computer link could be made a bit faster, brain speed wou

Edited 2011-10-11 10:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1