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.'"
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.
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?
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.
We're sorry but the memory you are trying to access has been removed due to a copyright claim by the MPAA.
Don't worry. You'll only get such messages in the beginning. As technology advances, you'll simply forget that you've ever seen it (which has the additional advantage for them that you might go again to see it "the first time").
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
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.