Tuesday, February 22, 2005
We don't need no thought control
The press release I linked above is yet another breakthrough in thought controlled robotics. In this study, researchers linked a computer up to a monkey's brain and had it reach for objects like food. When they had a good idea of how the brain's neurons fired to reach for objects left, right, far, and near, they hooked it up to a robotic arm and restrained the monkey's real arm. By extrapolating data, the arm can use the general pattern of the firing neurons to tell it how far to go and when to stop.
By the end of the study, the monkey was able to feed itself, which seems like a huge breakthrough for prosthetics, AI, neuroscience, and cybernetics. And it is, because with a few (ok, maybe more than a few) years of refinement, paralyzed people may be able to be walk, and people with ALS could be self-reliant. However, one little caveat is that the monkey had to train its thoughts to control the arm well. You might think that humans might be able to do this even better, but if it requires conscious thought, it might actually be more difficult. Nobody wants to have to exert massive brainpower to walk or write. Then again, I'm wondering, why didn't they just use human subjects in the first place? It seems that they could give better feedback as to whether it was working well and probably be able to control their thoughts better. Perhaps monkey brains are just that much simpler.
Anyway, I am ambivalent about the humanitarian uses of this technology. Not that it isn't a good use; I simply think that stem cell research and cures for the diseases in questions are probably just as far off as seamless cybernetic integration. Personally, I'm more interested in the augmentation uses of this technology, like being able to hook yourself up to a giant machine and have it be a natural extension of your body. Except you'd be able to pick up thousands of pounds with ease. And of course, I'm also incredibly interested in whether you'd be able to hook yourself up to a video game and control it without having to interface with a mouse and keyboard, or a joystick.
It's worth mentioning anyway, though, could we possibly be headed for a future where we're all augmented with computers and machines? Like the Borg, for example? I'd say that is much further down the line, and not worth speculation, because while we are making incredible strides in AI, computers, and biology, mechanical engineering is at a relative standstill. No one has made a machine that is as easy to use, efficient, and reliable as the human body. It wouldn't be worth it to replace your muscles with big robotic arms if they broke down every week and required oiling, recharging, and replacement parts. But computer implantation is much more realistic. Most people would probably shudder to think at it, but I think it would be tremendously cool if you could access a computer from your own mind. You'd have the knowledge of the entire internet with just a thought. Of course, we'd have to work on the interface, because nobody wants to run Windows and see ads inside their mind, but you get the idea.
If we've learned anything from Hollywood, though, we probably shouldn't hook Arnold up with any of this, or replace dead soldiers' arms with miniguns.
By the end of the study, the monkey was able to feed itself, which seems like a huge breakthrough for prosthetics, AI, neuroscience, and cybernetics. And it is, because with a few (ok, maybe more than a few) years of refinement, paralyzed people may be able to be walk, and people with ALS could be self-reliant. However, one little caveat is that the monkey had to train its thoughts to control the arm well. You might think that humans might be able to do this even better, but if it requires conscious thought, it might actually be more difficult. Nobody wants to have to exert massive brainpower to walk or write. Then again, I'm wondering, why didn't they just use human subjects in the first place? It seems that they could give better feedback as to whether it was working well and probably be able to control their thoughts better. Perhaps monkey brains are just that much simpler.
Anyway, I am ambivalent about the humanitarian uses of this technology. Not that it isn't a good use; I simply think that stem cell research and cures for the diseases in questions are probably just as far off as seamless cybernetic integration. Personally, I'm more interested in the augmentation uses of this technology, like being able to hook yourself up to a giant machine and have it be a natural extension of your body. Except you'd be able to pick up thousands of pounds with ease. And of course, I'm also incredibly interested in whether you'd be able to hook yourself up to a video game and control it without having to interface with a mouse and keyboard, or a joystick.
It's worth mentioning anyway, though, could we possibly be headed for a future where we're all augmented with computers and machines? Like the Borg, for example? I'd say that is much further down the line, and not worth speculation, because while we are making incredible strides in AI, computers, and biology, mechanical engineering is at a relative standstill. No one has made a machine that is as easy to use, efficient, and reliable as the human body. It wouldn't be worth it to replace your muscles with big robotic arms if they broke down every week and required oiling, recharging, and replacement parts. But computer implantation is much more realistic. Most people would probably shudder to think at it, but I think it would be tremendously cool if you could access a computer from your own mind. You'd have the knowledge of the entire internet with just a thought. Of course, we'd have to work on the interface, because nobody wants to run Windows and see ads inside their mind, but you get the idea.
If we've learned anything from Hollywood, though, we probably shouldn't hook Arnold up with any of this, or replace dead soldiers' arms with miniguns.
# posted by Stuart @ 4:16 PM 
