You must log in or register to comment.

VincentNacon t1_j5zv1s9 wrote

That's roughly about one word per second... that's pretty good! :D


Deafwindow t1_j60l7e1 wrote

It's above the average typing speed at least


Caffeine_Monster t1_j62relh wrote

It actually makes me wonder what the upper limit for human thought -> text entry is. I imagine it will be much higher than typing or speaking once the technology is refined. Ultimately this may drive healthy people to get an implant.


ArvindS0508 t1_j6377yc wrote

I think the upper limit will be beyond anything relating to language, like speaking or even thinking words. It'd be something like transcribing thoughts themselves from abstract forms into words.


x755x t1_j63tq89 wrote

I would love for somebody to transcribe the particular fuzzy images of people I imagine the same every time as my mental concept of actions like "driving" or "football". I'm pretty sure they're people contorted in ways that are impossible. But I can't even remember the image after it connects my thoughts, it's like a dream. Am I the only one?


Ambiwlans t1_j66tf1e wrote

We actually have an early brainwave to images ai now, release was a few months ago. Still needs a few years before it'll do arbitrary images though.


jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j6404qs wrote

Yeah. Or me imagining a 3d printed object and CAD software creating it for me


xOneLeafyBoi t1_j63f1mn wrote

I’m not sure what the upper limit for human thought is, but I’m sure 3.5g of magic mushrooms will take you towards it.


Rusty_Shakalford t1_j63kxqa wrote

Probably not. Research on speed reading has mostly supported the idea that the rate at which we naturally speak is the limit to which our brains can meaningfully process information. That is, while you can train yourself to understand text and speech a bit faster than normal, “speeding” through pages of text in a second isn’t any better than untrained skimming. Getting rid of “subvocalization” (I.e that inner voice many hear when reading), as many advocates of the method propose, does nothing to change that.

In other words, with a bit of training I suspect you might be able to output text like the micro machines guy, but none of it would have any meaningful thought behind it. That is, two people would not be able to have a “sped up” conversation, nor would it let you output a book any quicker.


jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j640myw wrote

Eh I disagree

The rate at which I speak is much slower than what I can think in words

But more over, I mostly think in multiple streams of thought and images. There's so much information that I can try to pack in at one time

Yes, the people trying to understand me would be the bottleneck... But if we're just talking creating, I can type very fast (love 120+ WPS) but my brain can still go much faster than that

Plus you'd be thinking mostly in words rather than letters. You would just say "cat" and it would know. Instead of C...A...T...


Ambiwlans t1_j66tl34 wrote

No evidence that the thought speed isn't a learned limit through speaking.

I typically watch tv at 2-3x speed and suspect that i'd be able to close to 2x speed if my tongue were more nimble. In Japanese i convey information probably 1.5x the speed i do in English (my native language). Simply because it supports faster speaking.


Rusty_Shakalford t1_j66uvm2 wrote

> No evidence that the thought speed isn't a learned limit through speaking.

There is.

Average syllable count per second varies across languages. But when the linked study looked at how fast information is actually conveyed they all do so at roughly the same rate.


NewChip547 t1_j60p7ws wrote

That mf had a lot to say lmao.


Fizzdizz t1_j61808v wrote

Was curious who developed the BCI, per article “The brain-computer interfaces that Shenoy’s team works with involve a small pad of sharp electrodes embedded in a person’s motor cortex, the brain region most involved in movement. This allows researchers to record activity from a few dozen neurons at once and find patterns that reflect what motions someone is thinking of, even if the person is paralyzed.”

Similar to neuralink and other BCI startups this is a surgical component imbedded through the skull. With companies like synchron which are developing a stent like BCI that is much less invasive surgery it will be interesting which becomes the go to form of BCI for the disabled.


martland28 t1_j63km7e wrote

Right now I think the go to company is Blackrock Microsystems, I think they have the most implanted BCI systems in humans patients out of all the companies. It’s weird how neuralink gets all the sensationalism when they’re quite far behind from Blackrock and other companies.


Layer_Signal t1_j624v6v wrote

Can someone ELI5 this for me: how does sticking a wire in someone's brain actually communicate their thoughts to a computer to type?


fatbunyip t1_j62mnvv wrote

Basically it's many very small wires that can pick up signals from small clusters of neurons in a specific area.

The idea is that the activity in the neurons when you think "move hand left" is different to when you think "move hand right". So once it's installed, you can get the person to think something, record the brain activity, and then you build a map of what brain activity matches what actions.


flusteredpie t1_j62x8k6 wrote

Interesting. Does it ever require recalibration or are the signals constant with age?


martland28 t1_j63l7l7 wrote

There’s not yet a universal calibration application so each BCI system is calibrated for each patient. Furthermore, yes, sometimes recalibration is necessary if the intended outcomes are bit off from what was expected.


SeattleBattles t1_j63f1o7 wrote

It doesn't read their thoughts per se. It detects signals from their motor cortex. When you speak that part of your brain tells your tongue, mouth, throat, ect to move in certain ways. Even though these signals don't make it to those body parts when a person has ALS, they are still there. The implant detects those signals and can tell what the person was trying to say.


GodsendNYC t1_j61383e wrote

Hell not bad, that's faster than I type!


AbbreviationsLoud445 t1_j63elvg wrote

Do you think they cheated and literally typed the phrase “62 words per minute?”


Jetm0t0 t1_j62danx wrote

It looks like they have to mime their words to the screen. Pretty cool still, no need for all that voice/gesture accessibility apps or guide programs.


groveborn t1_j62jp5a wrote

It could just go straight to voice synthesis if they really wanted it to. With modern deep fake tech, it would even sound like him.


LilMoWithTheGimpyLeg t1_j65ur6o wrote

What you can do now is record your voice before the disease takes your ability to speak. Then, when you need to use a text-to-speech program, it can use your real voice, rather than a generic one.


LeeMcNasty t1_j63xk0f wrote

Do they literally plug the cables into his head? Hope they went with USB-C


EOE97 t1_j64a6na wrote

That's 1.03333333333333333333333333 words a second. Faster than even typing.


molecat1 t1_j6eebjb wrote

Wonder what the error rate is, probably pretty high or they would tout it. All this article states is that tapping into more neurons improves it, no published numbers though.


Tdabp t1_j62zosl wrote

But when Elon Musk suggests it. He's lex Luther


Cheshire_Jester t1_j636wcj wrote

Fairly certain the controversy regarding Musk and Neuralink relates to the vaporware promises of downloaded consciousness.

That and the piles of dead monkeys.


Axrelis t1_j639uxe wrote

Won’t somebody think of the poor billionaire.