Slashdot Mirror
Next X-Prize — $10M For a Brain-Computer Interface
The first X-Prize was about reaching space. Now, reader destinyland writes "This time it's inner space, as Peter Diamandis holds a workshop at MIT discussing a $10 million X-Prize for building a brain-computer interface. This article includes video of Ray Kurzweil's 36-minute presentation, 'Merging the Human Brain with Its Creations,' and MIT synthetic neuroscientist Ed Boyden also made a presentation, followed by discussion groups about Input/Output, Control, Sensory, and Learning. Besides the ability to communicate by thought, the article argues, a Brain-Computer Interface X Prize 'will reward nothing less than a team that provides vision to the blind, new bodies to disabled people, and perhaps even a geographical 'sixth sense' akin to a GPS iPhone app in the brain.'"
It's called my hands on the keyboard.
ok, where's my 10mil
My understanding -- as a complete outsider to the field -- is that a lot of the elements are already there.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Yay for virtual telekinesis, telepathy, auxiliary video in and digital "videographic" memory.
Except that DRM and restrictive Copyright laws will probably cripple it...
What are the exact rules? Some BCI devices have already been made.
I want a way to communicate with the outside world from within a dream. If you could get lucid dreaming perfected you could get a day's work in while your physical body is resting. Then when you're awake you have the day off. ...of course i'm sure this will just devolve into working during the day and when you're asleep too heh.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
It also might not take millions of dollars to do. This could potentially be solved by someone in their garage.
One aspect to this is programming the mind itself.
To some extent we already do this naturally with our learning and memory forming cognitive capabilities. Simple programs are easily written to our minds.
THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING
YOU ARE NOW BREATHING MANUALLY
It will take time to build a language in which we can program more complex behaviors, but I have no doubt it is possible.
But if we pipe the internet directly into the brain will this make us even more depressed?
My understanding -- as a complete outsider to the field -- is that a lot of the elements are already there.
My understanding -- as an insider in the field -- is that you are correct. I work in the field of visual prosthetics. There are Phase II clinical trials underway for visual prostheses based on retinal stimulation, and a handful of researchers, like myself, who are looking at alternate approaches that include a more direct brain interface. To create a crude machine-brain visual interface, you need: (1) a digital imaging device, like a web cam, (2) a means to translate the image into the neural signal, like a wearable computer, (3) a computer-controlled multi-channel stimulator, like are used for cochlear implants, (4) a brain electrode, like are used to treat Parkinson's disease through Deep Brain Stimulation, or are used on the cortical surface to treat epilepsy. The parts are all there; it's really just a matter of integration, optimization, and getting FDA approval to try it in blind volunteers.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
FIDO! Here boy! Daddy's got a surprise for you...
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
The article linked is spammy and terrible. For the actual information, see the newsitem on the xprize site or the linked details. Basically, there is no prize yet but they had a workshop to begin working out A. Rules for a prize and B. What is achievable. The actual prize would be announced in about 8-14 months.
Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
That's a strange name to give a child...
The big problem I see is that unlike regular computer interfaces, which have tightly defined specs for physical connectivity, voltage levels, signalling etc, brains tend to be unique, irregular and dynamic, with only very rough maps available of which area has which function.
Unlike TCP/IP, There's no clear distinction between the link, transport and application layers to work with in the brain, they blend together. So it might be possible to implement on an individual level with a ton of work, but I can't see it happening generally.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
I have a small bit of experience in this field (having attended lab meetings for a University group partnered with the lab of Duke's Dr. Miguel Nicolelis).
I frankly have to say that the resolution in non-surgical methods is just not there, and is not promising. Surgical methods, on the other hand, are fairly invasive, and have yet to yield long-term success. And by success, I mean prediction of a single motor event, ie a mouse pushing a lever. Implants tend to degrade in signal quality over time.
Given that we cannot yet accurately predict simple motor events (which should have very easy-to-identify motor cortex manifestations), the idea that we are anywhere near interacting with conscious thought (which we still have no concept of the physical manifestation of which), is wrong. To put it in CS terms: Our data path is lossy and degrades with time. We have no idea what format the data is in, or even the data structures involved. We can tell that there is traffic on the network, but little else.
It also might not take millions of dollars to do. This could potentially be solved by someone in their garage.
No, that's just not the case. It will take millions of dollars and lots of equipment and infrastructure. We're not talking about technology, we're talking about biology. There are already hundreds if not thousands of people working on the problem (I'm among them). The limiting factors are not the power of our computers, or the whizziness of our mechanical machines, but the understanding of (a) how we can make permanent high-fidelity implants in the brain that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the patient, (b) what, exactly, the language for communicating through these implants is. While the last 100 years has seen tremendous, fantastic progress in understanding the brain, we are still pretty much in the dark as to the fine details, and it's the fine details that matter for a machine-brain interface. Fortunately, recent technological advances (two photon microscopy coupled with ultra-high resolution 3d tissue reconstruction) are going to give us a huge push toward understanding the details in the next few years.
Like I said, I work in the field. To do a very small -- SMALL -- experiment with only half a dozen volunteers who will have a temporary brain implant for two weeks, the non-recoverable costs are about $500,000. That's just for the hospital stays, the costs of the operating room, and paying support staff and the like, and assumes that the surgeon's time is donated, along with all of the important hardware. Remember, this is actually brain surgery. And yes, I have that cost baked into my budget.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
> we still do not have the ability to even accurately map active neural networks in the brain let alone communicate with them in real time.
Does the prize apply if the BCI only works if it is installed at an early age?
That way we don't need to have accurate maps of the neural networks (which are likely subtly different for each brain).
We just put the interface in, and let the brain learn how to use it - just the way tetrachromats get four colour vision while most humans have 3 colour vision.
Or how humans can learn how to use echolocation, see with their tongues (google seeing with tongue), or see with sound that's derived from videos/pictures ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0lmSYP7OcM ).
I agree. Especially since most slashdoters already have their DIY lobotomy kits.
What did you think where all those First Posters and goatse linkers come from?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
A $10 million prize is absolute peanuts compared to the obvious commercial value of a usable, non-invasive (or at least low-risk) BCI. Just for starters, an effective BCI would largely solve some of the major side effects of a stroke. That right there is a massive, multi-billion dollar market. Another $10 million is not going to substantially stimulate research and development in this area. It's like offering $10 million for a cure for cancer.
Furthermore, this is an invention with applications in dozens of areas. The company or individual that invents it would be swamped with licensing offers.
Compare this to the original X-Prize. There a prize was useful because there was no substantial pre-existing market for the technology being developed and there were relatively few areas of application for the technology. Under those circumstances a prize model makes sense.
But for situations like this one we already have a prize; it's called a patent. Even better, the value of the prize is determined by the market, so there's less of a risk of under or overvaluing the invention.
THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING
YOU ARE NOW BREATHING MANUALLY
Oh no! Now what do I do? How do I know that once I stop thinking about breathing that it will continue? Oh, cruel Fate! Must not get distracted...
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
US$ 500k? You've got to outsource that ASAP!
I don't have a sig.
I work in an optical imaging lab doing whole animal and human brain imaging studies. As you've mentioned two key points should be stressed for those outside the field.
(1) The project is laughably underfunded. Think more on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars plus for these types of projects to make it through the full FDA approval process. Human trials are phenomenally expensive, to the point where whole established companies can be driven to bankruptcy through the process (ART in Canada comes to mind).
(2) Many of the smaller pieces HAVE already been invented. By many different groups scattered around the globe. It will take some sort of insane IP wizardry to combine all of these patents along with the additional research required to meet the specific aims of the challenge.
I suppose this might fit in with your (a) but...
I read a BCI panel report put together by Theodore Berger some 3 years ago and the one thing I took away from the report was that the problem with BCI right now (for invasive implants) isn't the matter of "Where to put the implant" and "How to communicate," but a problem with keeping it permanently there. I hadn't realized prior to reading that report that the body was actually the number one "enemy" in any kind of long term study involving invasive implants. At the time that panel report was published (2007), the longest running implant had been just about a year. There were still a lot of open questions as well as to what was causing the implants to eventually fail.
Unless the implant tech has improved in the last 3 three years; it seems to me the biggest hurdle will be getting implants that can last longer than a year.
Think of the possibilities! You could re-watch your favorite anime minus the filler episodes, then watch them after and you'll think of them as bonus content! You could re-watch the Matrix without the sequels! You could write a short summary of the Lost storyline on the back of a napkin, print out some pics of Kate, then delete your entire memory of the series and take in the good bits ALL AT ONCE!
Oh! Oh! You could re-watch Star Wars with the prequels first, so that when you see episodes 4-6 you'll be like FUCK YEAH NOW IT'S GETTIN' GOOD!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel