By Paul Wallis
DIGITAL JOURNAL
December 18, 2023
Elon Musk standing next to a surgical robot during a Neuralink presentation in 2020 - Copyright AFP Adem ALTAN
The ramifications of a brain on a chip don’t have any boundaries. There are too many variables and too many possible applications. Add to this the advent of noisy, unimpressive AI and organic linkages of human tissue to chips. It’s a very blurry, unsightly mess.
“Brain on a chip” obviously has a very long way to go. What’s really disturbing about this technology is it seems to be following the same messianic marketing pattern as artificial intelligence. It’s great, it’s glorious, and it is almost entirely unproven. Nor is there much mention of integrating any of this technology with existing systems.
There is also an equally disingenuous and apparently illiterate “pseudo-science fiction” B movie environment about brain chips. Anyone who reads science fiction knows that sci-fi is as often as not about what’s wrong with technology as what’s right with it.
Human/chip interactions aren’t exactly new. They’ve been around for a couple of decades. These are the proven capabilities of this type of brain interface. Stephan Hawking is the best-known exponent of the basic interface.
The new technologies are long on hype but very short on specifics. How useful is a brand implant likely to be? Elon Musk is the main advocate for implants. His company Neuralink Is effectively the public face of brain interfaces.
To quote someone: So what?
To be strictly fair, the main stated function of Neuralink’s brain implants is medical applications. There are multiple potential issues with brain implants In urban mythology and in fact. One of the stated issues is “decision paralysis”, according to a study participant. The range of inputs from implants appears to be a significant issue.
This is hardly surprising. Neurology is an incredibly complex science, to say nothing of the issues with associated computer technologies. A lot of work is being done on neurological connections of organic tissues to computer technologies of various kinds.
One of the better known is a thing called Dishbrain, which indicated a strong learning capacity in the organic tissues themselves. These tissues learn how to play Pong. Given that neural tissues are basically learning and remembering mechanisms, this is about a lot of new ball games in play.
December 18, 2023
Elon Musk standing next to a surgical robot during a Neuralink presentation in 2020 - Copyright AFP Adem ALTAN
The ramifications of a brain on a chip don’t have any boundaries. There are too many variables and too many possible applications. Add to this the advent of noisy, unimpressive AI and organic linkages of human tissue to chips. It’s a very blurry, unsightly mess.
“Brain on a chip” obviously has a very long way to go. What’s really disturbing about this technology is it seems to be following the same messianic marketing pattern as artificial intelligence. It’s great, it’s glorious, and it is almost entirely unproven. Nor is there much mention of integrating any of this technology with existing systems.
There is also an equally disingenuous and apparently illiterate “pseudo-science fiction” B movie environment about brain chips. Anyone who reads science fiction knows that sci-fi is as often as not about what’s wrong with technology as what’s right with it.
Human/chip interactions aren’t exactly new. They’ve been around for a couple of decades. These are the proven capabilities of this type of brain interface. Stephan Hawking is the best-known exponent of the basic interface.
The new technologies are long on hype but very short on specifics. How useful is a brand implant likely to be? Elon Musk is the main advocate for implants. His company Neuralink Is effectively the public face of brain interfaces.
To quote someone: So what?
To be strictly fair, the main stated function of Neuralink’s brain implants is medical applications. There are multiple potential issues with brain implants In urban mythology and in fact. One of the stated issues is “decision paralysis”, according to a study participant. The range of inputs from implants appears to be a significant issue.
This is hardly surprising. Neurology is an incredibly complex science, to say nothing of the issues with associated computer technologies. A lot of work is being done on neurological connections of organic tissues to computer technologies of various kinds.
One of the better known is a thing called Dishbrain, which indicated a strong learning capacity in the organic tissues themselves. These tissues learn how to play Pong. Given that neural tissues are basically learning and remembering mechanisms, this is about a lot of new ball games in play.
Elon Musk startup Neuralink is working on connecting human brains directly to computers – Copyright Virgin Galactic/AFP Handout
Consider the combination of a brain implant and an organic chip.
These interact with a living human brain.
Add the “noise factor” cited by study participants.
The result is a predictable mess.
Add to those factors the individual customization needs of specific individuals. People may have physically similar brains, but those brains can’t work in the same way.
You’ll notice that nothing in this mixture of inputs gets simpler. Add artificial intelligence to the mix, and it becomes exponentially more complex. Imagine AI-level inputs into a human brain. Most of those inputs would be gibberish, and a lot of it. The human brain simply doesn’t work that way.
The human brain also works on a very low microvoltage. That means excessive inputs are dangerous and highly disruptive. These very fine molecular-level neural pathways don’t need any more stress.
I think it’s understandable that people would also be highly suspicious of this large number of new technologies. Not being addressed with brain chip technology are the risks, and these risks are very real physiologically.
Using the same logic, it’s also pretty obvious that people in a brain chip market would also be suspicious of quality issues. Hardware and software of any kind are also subject to a lot of scrutiny, with good reason.
The real pity of it is that this technology can be incredibly useful. It could literally give very sick people new lives. There is absolutely no doubt that the medical applications are critically important. This very strong upside is now being severely downgraded by too much verbosity.
There is another very strong and unavoidable point of market resistance to brain chips. Imagine having some form of the internet or a VPN inside your head. Theoretically, you can change channels or simply turn off inputs. Are you ready to trust this technology?
Brain chips should not be dismissed out of hand. On the other hand, what about possible abuse of brain chips, security, and sanity?
Leave it to the professionals. Proper risk evaluation is required. Meanwhile, keep the corporate skanks and hype merchants out of the mix.
_____________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
Consider the combination of a brain implant and an organic chip.
These interact with a living human brain.
Add the “noise factor” cited by study participants.
The result is a predictable mess.
Add to those factors the individual customization needs of specific individuals. People may have physically similar brains, but those brains can’t work in the same way.
You’ll notice that nothing in this mixture of inputs gets simpler. Add artificial intelligence to the mix, and it becomes exponentially more complex. Imagine AI-level inputs into a human brain. Most of those inputs would be gibberish, and a lot of it. The human brain simply doesn’t work that way.
The human brain also works on a very low microvoltage. That means excessive inputs are dangerous and highly disruptive. These very fine molecular-level neural pathways don’t need any more stress.
I think it’s understandable that people would also be highly suspicious of this large number of new technologies. Not being addressed with brain chip technology are the risks, and these risks are very real physiologically.
Using the same logic, it’s also pretty obvious that people in a brain chip market would also be suspicious of quality issues. Hardware and software of any kind are also subject to a lot of scrutiny, with good reason.
The real pity of it is that this technology can be incredibly useful. It could literally give very sick people new lives. There is absolutely no doubt that the medical applications are critically important. This very strong upside is now being severely downgraded by too much verbosity.
There is another very strong and unavoidable point of market resistance to brain chips. Imagine having some form of the internet or a VPN inside your head. Theoretically, you can change channels or simply turn off inputs. Are you ready to trust this technology?
Brain chips should not be dismissed out of hand. On the other hand, what about possible abuse of brain chips, security, and sanity?
Leave it to the professionals. Proper risk evaluation is required. Meanwhile, keep the corporate skanks and hype merchants out of the mix.
_____________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
No comments:
Post a Comment