zlacker

This kind of thing is really held back by BCI tech.

By now, we have smartphones with camera systems that beat human eyes, and SoCs powerful enough to perform whatever image processing you want them to, in real time.

But our best neural interfaces have the throughput close to that of a dial-up modem, and questionable longevity. Other technological blockers advanced in leaps and bounds, but SOTA on BCI today is not that far away from 20 years ago. Because medicine is where innovation goes to die.

It's why I'm excited for the new generation of BCIs like Neuralink. For now, they're mostly replicating the old capabilities, but with better fundamentals. But once the fundamentals - interface longevity, ease of installation, ease of adaptation - are there? We might actually get more capable, more scalable BCIs.

>>ACCoun+(OP)
To anyone wondering:

BCI == Brain-computer interface

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface

>>arcane+72
mind reading technology has already arrived. radiomyography & neural networks deciphering EEGs

>>ACCoun+(OP)
> Because medicine is where "move fast and break things" means people immediately die.

Fixed the typo for you.

>>Lapsa+p2
Not really. Non-invasive interfaces don't have the resolution. Can't make an omelet without cracking open a few skulls.

>>Siempr+57
Not moving fast and not breaking things means people die slowly and excruciatingly. Because the solutions for their medical issues were not developed in time.

Inaction has a price, you know.

>>ACCoun+Da
It has a price for the person with the condition. For the person developing the cure it does not (except perhaps opportunity cost, money not made that could have been), whereas killing their patients can have an extremely high one.

>>ACCoun+c7
they do read my mind at least to some extent -> "The paper concludes that it is possible to detect changes in the thickness and the properties of the muscle solely by evaluating the reflection coefficient of an antenna structure." https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6711930

>>ACCoun+Da
You’re starting to sound terrifyingly like an unethical scientist. We know how that ends, we’ve been down that road before, and we know why it is a terrible idea.

>>jama21+yS
There is a lot of space between “persons with a debilitating condition are prohibited from choosing to take a risky treatment that might help” and “hey let’s feed these prisoners smallpox-laced cheese for a week and see what happens”.

The “no harm, ever” crowd does not have a monopoly on ethics.

>>ACCoun+Da
The majority of treatments people ever thought up and think up today are somewhere between useless and terrible ideas. Whatever you think is looking so exciting right now, there have been a million other things that looked just as exciting before. They do not anymore.

We didn't come up with these rules around medical treatments out of nowhere, humanity has learned them through painful lessons.

The medical field used to operate very differently and I do not want to go back to those times.