|
|
|
|
|
by xk_id
602 days ago
|
|
Those non-invasive headbands (which work very differently from implanted electrodes) are notoriously inaccurate at recording brain signals. Even scientific studies, which use advanced setups like the 10-20 system for scalp EEG, face unsolved challenges in removing noise from the data and in using the data to reconstruct underlying brain activity [0] – let alone making meaningful inferences about it. Patients with locked-in syndrome (one of the use cases mentioned in the article, also called a pseudo-coma), or with other disorders of consciousness, are unable to protest, or to confirm the accuracy of the generative message which is being attributed to them. Communicating on your own terms and in your own words is fundamental to human dignity. Meanwhile, this coincides with lukewarm reception of generative AI from consumers; perhaps it is the lack of autonomy of locked-in patients, which makes them an interesting segment to this new generation of ventures, scrambling for a ROI on the enormous over-investment in the sector. The conference venues look lush tho. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography#Artifac... |
|
It's an extremely powerful tool for diagnosis of a limited range of conditions but it is not magic. Electrical signal gets attenuated heavily when signals are not on the outside of the brain. Even still, a headband like this is susceptible to noise from movement and other factors. You either need to correct for this with AI, which introduces a second source for error, or you need a very still user. I'm not convinced by the ability to "read minds" with the technology; I would need the man in the video answer some specific questions to be convinced.
Is this better than not being able to communicate at all? Yes.