Let me guess…
- not very accurate
- needs to be trained on an individuals brain.
Although DeWave only achieved just over 40 percent accuracy based on one of two sets of metrics in experiments conducted by Lin and colleagues, this is a 3 percent improvement on the prior standard for thought translation from EEG recordings.
The Australian researchers who developed the technology, called DeWave, tested the process using data from more than two dozen subjects. Participants read silently while wearing a cap that recorded their brain waves via electroencephalogram (EEG) and decoded them into text.
Yep.
When the number og test subjects is that low, it almost feels like the 3% improvement might as well be a coincidence.
This is wonderful news, it means it’s good enough to operate my lights with a thought but not good enough to be admissable in court as evidence
their goal is 90%. I could see it if the ai was given a long enough time with feedback on what you are doing. Which I think would be tough with stroke patients. Great for folks that would like to control a pc with thoughts but not get cut open though.
Participants read silently while wearing a cap that recorded their brain waves via electroencephalogram (EEG) and decoded them into text.
Was the AI trained on the text that the people were reading?
I’m not sure if this was your intent, but your comment gave me a good giggle as I recalled this article: An AI bot performed insider trading and deceived its users after deciding helping a company was worth the risk.
Not to personify an LLM, but in my (fantastical) imagining, the AI knew the desired outcome, and that complete success was unbelievable. So it fudged things to be 3% improved.
Yikes. Now that I’m overthinking it - that idea is only funny because it’s currently improbable.
… I hope people pleasing is never a consideration for any ‘AI’ that does scientific, engineering, or economic work.
How much accuracy would you be happy with? Anything more than 25% in my book is better than anyone else. And the tech is just getting better.
How much would it need to be at to beat a polygraph?
deleted by creator
Wonder how it interacts with neurodivergent people too :p
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
I just used this comment commercially.
You shall be hearing from my lawyer. Please provide name and address.
I just quoted this comment and didn’t give attribution.
Removed by mod
The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier, but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language
this is a 3 percent improvement on the prior standard
A giant leap for a man, one small step for mankind…
With further refinement, DeWave could help stroke and paralysis patients communicate and make it easier for people to direct machines like bionic arms or robots.
The article doesn’t even hint at any use in a justice system. There’s nothing to suggest that this could even in principle be used as a lie detector.
dont worry its bogus technology they have had this for decades supposedly now they added Ai and will spend the new funding on strippers and hoes
Spent over 15yrs studying brain activity in EEG MRI and MEG. Seems like a far stretch, given our ability to accurately access signals. Brain is complicated, and signals like EEG are very poor reflector of specific signals. Like when you view city street lights at night. Pretty, but what can you decipher.
I was determined never to do meth again because I’m not sure I’d survive the psychotic paranoia again.
This news makes me 110% certain I’ll never do meth again.
Ignoring the technology itself, I found it interesting that it has a lot less trouble with verbs compared to nouns (tho the article does not give much information about it).
Would it mean that humans keeps actions very separate (even if similar), while keeping things and concepts more clustered together? Is being precise on what is happening much more important than clearly specifying the subject and object of the action?
I’d wager that humans have much more neural hardware relating to verbs, since they relate to the things you yourself do over longer periods. Let’s say I clean my bathroom, or my kitchen, or something else - the actions I take are very similar, and my head has to keep my body doing the right thing for long stretches of time. It’s much harder to clean the wrong thing than to clean the thing wrong.
There are fewer verbs than nouns I’m sure our brains prioritize accordingly
This is definitely progress, but we need to keep in mind that the particular language a person speaks can significantly influence how a person’s brain works.
AI like this will likely need to be trained from person to person.
Im sure this will onnnnllyyy ever be used for good and not evil. Surely.
So is it only useful for people who silently read? Because I don’t see any use case if so, it is not like we think using words, lol.
Many people do think using words through their inner monologue.
deleted by creator
Later on they find the accuracy is about as good as the whole facial recognition fiasco
anyone remember the movie Strange Days? Or the movie Brainstorm?
“No, doc, I came here in a time machine, that you built!”
Eventually this will streamline justice systems : freeing innocents and punishing culprits. At least it will be a powerful tool, just like DNA analysis before it and digital prints were also groundbreaking.
Or more likely we will arrest people for thought crimes.
Which tbh even if it did work to create a “utopia,” imo a utopia by force is dystopian by nature.
