[buboard]

This reads like Baghead from silicon valley speaking. The current technologies are still too invasive to suggest anything "promising", and their speculated tech is so far futuristic i m not sure if its to be taken seriously. Making an fMRI portable in one's head is .... no small task to put it mildly, especially if you 're going for the 5-7T that state of the art has. The visions are good to the ear but what puts me off about their article is they seem to be taking credit or for the vision and work that many other labs have been doing in the past 3 decades. In comparison, NeuraLinks presentation was more nuanced in presenting their incremental improvements, and they actually have a product.

I don't like that HN upvotes these articles, falling for FB's PR machine and billionaires circlejerking. I thought they could do better. There are very cool neuronal visualization and recording techniques being developed but you never read about them here.

[sidr]

I partly agree with you that this article is getting buzz because FB, but this is not low quality research by any means (especially given the constraints of obtaining such data). There are, as you point out, a bunch of similar ECoG "brain decoding" papers out there that don't get upvoted to the top of HN.

Also, minor point - I don't think FB is trying to make a portable MRI. The physical limitations alone would make that a completely silly endeavor, even for SV billionaires.

[buboard]

> this is not low quality research

I was referring to the press release which is only partially (and kinda misleadingly - the paper is ecog recordings) related to the nature paper , which is of course great

> completely silly endeavor

haha true, they re talking about some pulse oximeter/noninvasive device, though that s just as sciencefictiony as anything.