September 21, 2016 • 42 mins
How did Stanford teach monkeys to transcribe Hamlet using only their monkey brains? And how could this technology benefit us in the future? We revisit computer-brain interfaces.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to
Forward Thinking. Hey there, and welcome to Horward Thinking, the
podcast that looks at the future says, I blame myself
and I blame the machines. I'm Jonathan Strickland and I'm
(00:22):
Joe McCormick. In today, we're going to be revisiting a
topic we've looked at on this show before, but coming
coming at you with an update on the subject of
brain computer interfaces. Okay, the concept here is that you
train a computer to interpret your brain waves. Then you
think really hard about doing something, I mean not just
(00:43):
anything like like moving a cursor or or typing a
word or something like that, and then it happens. It's
like magic, but with more electrones. Exactly. So, brain computer
interfaces could be anything from an ability to to be
able to, like you say, move a cursor, type of
war and communicate or manipulate a robotic limb. There are
(01:04):
a lot of different like that, exactly. There are a
lot of different potential applications. But honestly, it just it
boils down to stripping away any sort of of interface
that would require movement, and it relies purely on thought right,
And of course that's the output half of it. There's
also the input half of it, where you could say
a brain you know, input oriented brain computer interface would
(01:25):
be getting stimuli without the use of your senses, maybe
like having an idea sent directly to your brain instead
of through your eyes or something so something like like
a a an interface where you are receiving information from
the outside world in some manner. For example, Uh, let's
(01:46):
one one thing we'll talk about towards the end of
the episode is the idea of being able to access, say,
the Internet, directly through your brain. Yeah. A common example
would be, you know, could we put some micro electrodes
in your visual corte x that would allow you to
see without seeing. You could have your you know, your
eyes closed but still perceive an image in your brain. Man,
(02:08):
sleeping would be so weird. Okay, I'm just looking through
the top of my head. No. Anyway, So we've got
a lot to say about this, but you may think,
if you're a long time listener, haven't you guys addressed
this before, Joe, you alluded to that. We actually have
quite a few times. A Yeah, and one of our
very early episodes was about this technology that was called
(02:28):
Computers on the Mind all from all the way back
in April. Pretty sure I titled that one. I'm pretty
sure that's accurate. That is not one of the greatest
of our punny title No, no, they're not all home runs. Anyway,
you're saying, I wish that we had a cricket sound board,
and here's that anyway. Yes, yes, as when we recorded
(02:51):
that first episode about it, there was some exploratory research
into brain computer interfaces that was really amazing that there
was this team out of out of mostly Brown University,
also involving Stanford and a bunch of other researchers calling
themselves brain Gate brain Gate, uh, that that had created
this interface that allowed a woman with quadriplegia to feed
(03:13):
herself using a robotic arm um. Uh. They also created
the first wireless implantable electrode that was being used at
the time in animal testing. But all of this was
fairly foundational work. Uh. And we've also talked of course
about brain computer interfaces more recently during discussions into computer
(03:33):
interfaces in general, episodes like your Body as a Computer
Interface from April of sixteen and did Minority Report shape
user interfaces, which was from September. The answer was yeah,
surprisingly like kind of upsettingly. Uh, that Minority Report is
(03:53):
a fine film, um, but but precog thing though serious. No,
I'm not going to get off on that. If I
do that the episodes over, I'll just be granting and raving.
Pray continue, thank you sir. Um. But yeah, so, so
all of those episodes focused more on on physical computer controls,
you know, like like a keyboards or or mice, or
(04:14):
or even touch screens or some some voice and gesture controls,
which are things that most of us use and are
used to. Um, But wouldn't it be nice if we
could just think at our computers and have them execute
our commands. It would be pretty sexy for everybody, really,
but but really especially useful for folks, uh, like that
woman with quadriplegia, who for whatever reason have trouble with
(04:37):
fine motor controls and or speech. So we thought that
today we would look into this topic again and kind
of see what the state of the brain computer interface
union is. But first let's let's talk Let's talk about
kind of like the basics, Like like, let's get that
ground level placed poor as it is, how how do
(04:59):
you make connection between a brain and a computer anyway.
It's not necessarily easy, but it's also not necessarily as
hard as you might imagine, because we already do share
a semi common language between brains and electronic machines, electrical machines,
which is electricity. Sure. Yeah, so so the brain, you
(05:20):
would say, communicates between cells via electrochemical potential, and by
using electrical charge, you can make the brain do what
it would normally be doing when when part of it
was activating. That's very imprecise language activating. But well it's
a pretty imprecise uh practice as well. I mean I
(05:44):
think I think we've gotten pretty good and making the
brain like totally overwhelmed. It's it's hard, Yeah, it's harder
to get very specific outcomes, right, like like to to
cause someone to have a specific sensation shin or trigger
a memory or anything like that. I mean, overwhelming the
(06:04):
brain not a problem if you want to just are
you just talking about electric shock there? Essentially. What's a
little easier, though, is training a computer training software. What
different brain signals in our our meaning? Like like like
if a person's brain lights up in a certain way, Ah,
(06:26):
what does that mean? Right? Right? So are they thinking
about what are they trying to do? So there's a
training process in any brain computer interface that has two components.
You're training the person to use the interface and your
train the computer on what the person's brain waves actually
are are linked towards. So you have a long, uh
(06:48):
training process. I hate to keep using that phrase, but
it's the most accurate. You have a very long training
process to get to a point where you can actually
do something useful. So a very very simple exam bowl
would be all right, let's let's talk about your your
basic brain computer interface, which tends to involve invasive surgery. Right,
(07:08):
you have to because e e g. S don't really
cut it, is the thing. Yeah, they're not electrodes. Um
your your brain, your your skull is not the very
best fair day cage, but it's pretty effective, actually exactly right.
So you need to get access to those sweet sweet
electrical uh ilse impulses on the brain surface. So typically
it involves uh brain surgery. You're actually opening up the
(07:32):
skull cap and you're putting overlaying maybe an array of
of sensors of electrodes on the surface of the brain.
Typically you don't go into the brain for this, it
does tend to be along the surface of the brain,
and then you have usually some sort of transcranial connector,
so it actually is going through the skull when you
(07:54):
reattach the skull to then wire typically to a computer system.
There are wireless ones as well, though those are earlier
in development and they still require transcranial ports. Right right,
You're still you're still putting something in the brain and
then like plugging a wireless device into the outside of
(08:14):
your skull. Yeah, yeah, it's there's not there's not a
way right now where we have truly wireless where it's
all within the skull itself and it's contained and therefore
you don't have any sign of a connector there. And
because again um that the bone is really surprisingly effective
at keeping electrical signals inside and outside based on where
(08:37):
they are. Yeah, it turns out, it turns out that's
a good thing for most of us most of the time. Yes, yeah,
but it's it does make it very difficult to interface
with a machine this way. So you then once you
have the connection, the physical connection or the wireless connection
from the person to the computer, you establish some form
of test that will start to train both the person
(09:00):
with the interface and the machine itself on working together.
And a typical one might be that the person is
looking at a picture of a ball, and there's a
second picture of a ball, and their job is to
imagine trying to force the one ball so that overlays
(09:21):
on top of the other one. So let's say one's
green and one's yellow, and so your your job is
to to imagine moving the green ball over top the
yellow ball, and you do this over and over and
over again. And there's actually a scoring system typically, and
it's one to help motivate the person who's who's training.
(09:42):
It's also meant to give feedback on all right, well,
because this was inconsistent between trials three and four, we
have to keep working on this in order for the
machine to understand what it is you are trying to do.
Otherwise it will misinterpret your thought and you could get
an erroneous salt. So if you're getting into something where
you're trying to say, type out a word and you're thinking,
(10:05):
I want the cursor to move to the letter T,
but the machine has misinterpreted that, you could end up
with typos and mistakes. So you go through this laborious
process where both the machine and the person learn and
then ultimately you reach a point where the machine has
a pretty good feel for what it means when you
(10:26):
think in a certain way in order to manipulate stuff,
and and that's when you get the results you wanted.
It is. I'm not gonna say it's inelegant. I think
it's an elegant solution, but it's an elegant solution that
takes a good deal of work and effort and time. Well,
I mean, one thing about that that occurs to me
immediately is that it seems quite personalized to the individual user,
(10:50):
not necessarily like if you design, say you're working on
a speech to text program or something, hopefully what you're
doing is you're you're training it for universal speech to text.
You know, if you're speaking, as long as you're speaking
in a way that people would normally be able to
understand the words you're saying without some kind of incredibly
thick accent or something, it's going to be able to
(11:12):
turn that into text. Would the same thing necessarily be true?
Would you know? So you would hook up one person's
brain and learn how to how to allow them to
control a computer cursor without touching the mouse or the keys,
just their brain. Could you then come and bring somebody
else in and hook their brain up and have them
do the same thing, certainly not yet. Yeah, it's I
(11:36):
mean you'd have to retrain them. Basically, you have to
retrain both the person and computer. Yeah, exactly, Yeah, it's
it's it's not a one size fits all kind of solution,
which is also why I get very skeptical whenever I
see any of those distractions, the games that have the
little e g. Style headset and you're supposed to focus
in order to make the game work, I get a
(11:58):
little I mean, if it's just trying to pick up
an increase in brainwave activity and that's all it's doing,
then it's kind of like just a dimmer switch, right,
Like there's nothing super sophisticated about it. But when it
gets to like more uh complicated claims that hey, if
you if you concentrate on the ball to go up,
the ball goes up, and if you concentrate on the
(12:20):
ball to go down, the ball goes down, and it's
a one size fits all kind of thing, I often
think that's more or less bologny. I mean, not that
it doesn't work at all, But it doesn't I doubt
it works in the way they're saying it works, and
it probably I mean, if it does work even vaguely
in the way that they say that it works, it
probably doesn't work very well. Yeah, because again, unfortunately, right now,
(12:43):
that surgery is an integral part of getting getting to
those juicy, juicy brainwaves. Yeah. So it was just last
year that we actually got to the point where a
wireless solution was even a thing. In that case, it's
not for humans, well yeah, yeah, well, and and the
wireless solution is is so exciting because because previously the
(13:08):
thing that you plug into your skull to to access
those electrodes is a tether. That's that's meaning the ear,
the ear tied to a laboratory in which that that
tether exists or or I mean, even if even if
it was available for like home use, you wouldn't be
able to be mobile while you were using this kind
of device. So so getting that that mobility and a
(13:28):
little bit more comfort for subjects who are who are
testing out this kind of stuff is is really critical
in moving towards a place where where it could be
actually useful for actual people in their actual lives, right,
And we've also seen progress that's akin to Moore's law,
the idea that over time, you can increase the abilities
(13:51):
of say a microprocessor by reducing the size of the
individual components. The same thing has been true for the
electrodes that have been used in this kind of thing,
all right, which is so cool because because anytime that
you put an implant in the brain, it's it's going
to cause a little bit of scarring in the brain tissue.
And that's scarring uh gets larger over time. Um. The
(14:12):
eventually the scar tissue begins to uh to degrade the
quality of the signal that the electrodes can send out
because it's it's it's a thicker it's a thicker material
than your normal brain stuff. It's almost like a callous
exactly exactly so um so so smaller implants equal less scarring,
equal better technology over time equal yea yeah. And obviously,
(14:34):
if you were to undergo a procedure where you are
going to have some sort of electrode array implanted in
your brain, you want it to last for as long
as it possibly can so that you don't have to
undergo a future procedure in order to correct any issues
from scarring exactly. So this is a this is a
huge advance, even though it's very talian. Uh. Yeah, and
(14:56):
hope hopefully, I like Jonathan said, it's currently that the
wireless stuff is only available for animal testing. Um, hopefully
a wireless device will be cleared for human testing soon.
That the last I heard about it in I believe
December of there was one company that was that was
working with the brain Gate project that was was submitting
(15:19):
a proposal to the FDA. So no word on that
as of Google today, right, but but you know, fingers cressed. Yeah,
and so let's kind of segue into some of the
work that's been done recently to help improve the approach
of brain computer interfaces. We we have to say, Ralph
(15:40):
the Bat, there's nothing that's like the the holy Grail
of brain computer interfaces that magically makes them work perfectly.
But we've seen some pretty cool advances. Yeah. There was
one story in particular that kind of spurred this this
episode two into creation that involved alves, monkeys, and hamlet. Yeah. Yeah,
(16:02):
and I I really I campaigned hard to cover this
for a show that we do called Hell Stuff Works.
Now because I'm a technology freak and a Shakespeare freak,
So the dual punch hit me right in the stern um. Uh.
So we're talking about a project that came out of
(16:22):
Stanford bio x. There was a group of scientists at
Stanford who were looking specifically at ways to improve brain
computer interfaces for people who have mobility issues. They said
that one of the biggest challenges they were facing was
that the interfaces that existed up to that point were
relatively slow, and frequently people were finding, uh it difficult
(16:45):
to use that they were there were it was inserting errors.
They were getting misspellings or typos or whatever. And that
causes frustration obviously. And I don't I know you guys, like,
if you've ever been working on a task that's particularly
hard and then you get frustrated, it suddenly seems like
the difficulty of that task is skyrocketed. It's like if
you're already trying to do something difficult on your computer
(17:08):
and then your computer starts getting slow. Yeah, isn't that
the best feeling? It's so frustrating. And have you ever
been playing a video game where there was a glitch
in it and and you were like like the controls
maybe like especially in older games, where like the controls
were already a little bit like like rough, like tank like,
and then all of a sudden, you just get to
a glitch where you're like, well, it's it's physically impossible
(17:28):
for me to beat this. Yeah, they're there's great. There
are times where you just you know, you feel that
level of frustration, and it it makes something that is
already challenging even more difficult, right like even if that
barrier were not there anymore, because of your frustration, your
ability to focus has has decreased, and so there was
(17:48):
a real need to try and improve this tech. Uh.
And in fact, there's a quote specifically from a piece
in Stanford News that said earlier versions of this technology
have already been tested successfully in people with paralysis, but
the typing was slow and imprecise. This latest work tests
improvements to the speed and accuracy of the technology that
interprets brain signals and drives the cursor. So in this case,
(18:11):
they're talking about an interface where you have like a
screen with a bunch of letters on it, and there's
a cursor as well, and you can concentrate and move
the cursor to the appropriate letter and then concentrate again
as if you were clicking on that letter and its selects. It.
It acts as a type, you know, like a typewriter,
(18:32):
but you're doing it very much a point like a
search and pack kind of approach, where instead of a finger,
you're using your brain. Now, the way they tested the
improvements to this technology, it was a bit unusual. They
used monkeys as test subjects. Not unusual, right, not unusual
for this. But they trained them to concentrate on symbols,
(18:54):
and then they had them transcribe passages from a couple
of different sources, the New York Times, some articles from
the New York Times. They used that as a test
um text to transcribe, and in one case Hamlet. So
that of course prompted people to make reference to that
old idea that if you stuck an infinite number of
(19:16):
monkeys in a room with an infinite number of typewriters,
sooner or later one of them would produce the complete
works of Shakespeare just by chance. Because the definition of
infinite is in an infinite number of monkeys. I always
thought it was this finite number of monkeys given infinite time.
Either way, it's same thing right. I feel like the
Douglas Adams version was infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, and infinite
(19:38):
If it were infinite monkeys and just one typewriter, boy,
who I'd imagine. But the infinite monkeys get the Shakespeare
done a lot faster than finite monkeys, you would imagine, Yeah,
infinite monkey. I don't know, do they. I mean, at
a certain point, is adding more monkeys help or hurt
the situation? It always helps. Adding more monkeys always happens.
Why you're the optimist. Three things. If you take nothing
(20:01):
else from this show, Ladies and gentlemen, take the words
of wisdom from Joe. Adding monkeys always helps. Um So
in this case, obviously the monkeys weren't typing up Hamlet
purely by chance, they were transcribing it, and in fact
only one was doing it. But yeah, and so, so
what what the researchers did here is they they implanted
(20:22):
electrodes into the monkey's motor cortexes and and the monkeys
were trained to move cursors around the screen first with
actual gestures, and the camera watched their movements while the
software was watching their brain waves. Thus the computer learned
what the monkeys intent to move looked like right, And
keep in mind, they had no comprehension of the text
(20:42):
as far as we are aware, they weren't suddenly all.
But they didn't all become subscribers to The New York
Times or aficionados of The Bard As far as we know,
none of them, as far as I'm aware, contacted Kenneth Bruna,
but several of them did become oxford Ians. There were
a couple of bacon Vans in the group. I'm not
(21:03):
gonna lie. Uh. They were literally just just replicating those
words by doing that that kind of cursor click approach
we were talking about, by concentrating. But despite those limitations,
despite those qualifiers, they were able to reach a speed
of around twelve words per minute, which was pretty impressive
for a monkey, Really pretty impressive considering the technology at all.
(21:27):
Absolutely so for fun, because I was curious. I thought
it might be interested to see how long it would
take a monkey to type out Hamlet in this way,
keeping in mind the monkey is again transcribing Hamlet, not
actually just spontaneously typing up the play. Right, Sure, but
I guess this means you have to pick a certain
version of Hamlet that's true. I I picked I picked
(21:50):
a pretty standard version, and I was I actually did
go to a site that gave like a number of
words for every work. Hamlet, by the way, in case
you're curious, is the longest of Shakespeare's plays by number
of words and by running time. If they're doing the
whole darn thing, it has thirty seven words. So at
(22:13):
twelve words per minute, it would take a monkey about
forty two point four hours to type out the whole thing.
But to replicate all of Shakespeare's plays and not as sonnets,
I didn't include the sonnets. But if you were to
replicate all of Shakespeare's plays, it would take about forty
days of typing at twelve words per minute. Uh so
now we know, right, Um, if you remove the chance part,
(22:35):
we got chance in there. We still that's still a mystery,
but it's it's still it's still like like certainly not
an infinite amount of time. No, that's a pretty I mean, yeah,
a month and a half right now, we do still
need to add more monkeys to Joe's point in order
to answer the other question. Now. They also pointed out
that they were not using any completion algorithms. The kind
of stuff that you might find in smartphones or some
(22:58):
computer programs, where you start type being a word and
it tries to guess what word you intend based upon
context and your frequency of using certain words, and it's
always wrong. It's frequently wrong, not necessarily. I actually had
autocomplete back before I started using swipe text, which is
just another exercise of futility that I apparently am determined
(23:22):
to continue to pursue. Um. When I was typing in
letter by letter, I noticed that autocomplete was more right
than wrong. But when it was wrong, it was hilariously wrong. Yeah,
and often in a way that makes you feel bad
about yourself or or it makes you feel weird about
who ever programmed that algorithm, because you're like, why would
(23:43):
they ever think I would use that word? Um? Oh,
I assume it's being like tailored to you. Right, it
is paying attention to your typing patterns well, and is
it not? It depends, right. Sometimes it's simply an algorithm
that just looks at the letters that you have typed
in so far, looks for words that have that sequence
of letters, and sometimes even can context within the sentence. Right,
(24:05):
So if if the letter the words leading up to
the word you are typing. If it would make sense
for you to say, like a, did I what's a
good one? Um? Did I leave the refrigerator door open?
And you're like r e u F. It might say, well,
it's probably refrigerator. Did I leave the It's either refrigerator
or it's referee. They've either left something in the fridge
(24:28):
or they've left a baseball game. I'm gonna take a
guess that this guy, who has never cared about sports ball,
I's talking about a fridge. Um. So it depends there's
some there's some typing in Uh, I don't know what
Oxford I in and it says, did you mean Tim Tebow?
It mind? Does that to me? Okay, well, that that
(24:50):
specific example. I was about to say, that's a very
expecific example on very odd but at any rate, they
did not use any completion algorithms this. However, they said
that that could potentially be something that to be included
in future implementations that could help speed up communication, as
long as it could be implemented in a way that
(25:12):
again did not increase frustration. If it's one of those
things where you know you you start searching the internet,
for all the the unintentionally hilarious auto complete or autocorrect
mistakes like, yeah, it's funny and a meme. But if
you're if you're someone for whom this is the only
way you can really communicate with others, it would be
(25:32):
incredibly awful. It would just be so frustrating. So, um
it's it's something that may and be incorporated into future implementations,
but as of right now, it is not part of
their their approach. Um Now, a lot of different uh,
research facilities have been looking into this, not just Stanford, right, Uh,
(25:56):
I mean there's there have been several research facilities around
the world, and there's some pretty um what's a good
word to put it, enthusiastic, but shadowy organizations that have
interests in this. So okay, here's the part where we
talk about a creepy thing that dark has been doing.
(26:17):
Um So, another barrier to this technology going mainstream is
the inherent danger in drilling a hole in someone's skull
and and implanting stuff in your brain. That's that's not
a good Tuesday for anybody, right, um so so So,
DARPA has been funding the development of a new medical
technology that they're calling a stent trode. Stent trode, Yes,
(26:42):
stent trode like a stint an electrode. Yeah, yeah yeah.
And with this no skull holes are required or no
new ones anyway, keep the ones that you already have. Um.
But but the the electrode. You take a stent and
you and you go in through a blood vessel in
the next to read the electrode up into the brain
and then you can monitor electrical signals happening in neurons nearby.
(27:07):
And I had the exact same reaction that Joe just
had when I was reading about this. That's creepy. There's
someone else who has a very similar idea that we'll
talk about in just a minute. But I think it's
probably the same general technological approach that you're talking about.
It's just that's not the way I read it when
I was looking into it. But it makes way more
sense the way you're describing it. I mean, one thing
(27:28):
we should emphasize again is that there are also people
talking about non invasive methods and and using noninvasive methods
of reading the brain. They just lack precision and power,
or in some cases they're they're plenty precise, and there
are plenty powerful, but they require you to be inside
an m R I machine. Right, Yeah, yeah, we haven't
mentioned that part yet. Uh. Yes, some of you might
(27:51):
have been thinking earlier in this episode when we were
talking about how surgery is necessary because of the preciseness
imprecisity of of other methods of reading brain signals. You're thinking, oh,
m R I. M r s are really great at
reading brain signals, but they also require you to lay
perfectly still in a very giant, very expensive, very noisy machine,
(28:12):
um for the entirety of the time that you were
using them. Therefore, if you're trying to do it to
like talk to somebody or you know, eat food, that's
not as practical. That's a pretty good premise for a
future sci fi scenario where people are walking around with
m R I hats like they've got a they've got
a giant machine propped on their shoulders. They've got really
(28:34):
powerful bodies from walking around with these things. I guess
the supervillain in this in this world would be Phero
magnetic Man, because you don't want to have any of
that near you. Um so so other other than Pharaoh
magnetic Man. And uh and this lovely Mr I future.
What else could the future possibly hold for brain computer
(28:56):
interface type devices, y'all? So obviously, just getting a deeper
understanding of the brain in general is going to be
a huge help for multiple disciplines, not just creating better
brain computer interfaces, but all sorts of things. Uh. And
we have have stressed on this show multiple times how
we are at just the very dawn of our understanding
(29:19):
of the human brain. It is an incredibly complex oregon,
and we only have an inkling of what is going
on up there. We've got a pretty good grasp of
some basics, but when it gets down to the particulars,
it gets really complicated. Uh. Well, we're also going to
see improvements in the machine learning side, as computers get
(29:40):
better and better at interpreting what our signals mean. Similar
to what we saw with the Stanford experiment, I would
imagine that we would see that words per minute start
to climb a little more each time we get a
little bit better at this. Ah, the surgical procedure thing,
that's obviously a huge barrier. Obviously, I mean people who
are are going this, uh, they often are are people
(30:03):
who feel like they have really no other alternative. And
that is something that they want for themselves. And uh yeah,
like like having a whole drilled in your skull will
lead to a better quality of life kind of situations,
which which of course I'm not making light of it,
like like that's that's a very real reality for for
(30:23):
for a good number of people. And this kind of
this kind of volunteer research has has been tremendous. Yes, yes,
there's some really inspiring videos about people who have undergone
procedures like this and when you see the change in
their behaviors after the procedure is done. I mean, if
you're any sort of empathetic person like me, you will
(30:48):
find yourself holding back tears at your desk. Yeah, there's
a video I think from of of a woman using
the brain Gate robotic arm technology to to serve herself
coffee for the first time in years. And it's and
it's and it sounds like very simple things. The one
I saw, I'm gonna get a all Tier two Joe's like,
(31:09):
good Greek guys, come on, I want to get out
of here. The one I saw it was a guy
who um had suffered an accident, was paralyzed from the
neck down and under he underwent uh surgical procedure, and
in that case it was also to control a robotic arm.
He did the whole training procedure I talked about. In fact,
the video showed the example I gave about moving a
(31:32):
ball over another ball with you know, doing that over
and over again. And that was just to train the
brain so that when the the they hooked him up
to the robotic arm, which was you know, just completely
separate from him, that um that it would the robotic
arm would would follow general instructions based upon that training sequence.
He uh then the first time they hooked him up,
(31:56):
was able to uh reach out and take his girlfriend's hand,
and that killed me. He's like, I was able to
hold my girlfriend's hand for the first time in years
because of this. And I was like, I'm like, I'm done.
I'm done. I need a quiet room. Gonna go book
the quiet room. Like when you hear the muffled snuffling,
that's me. So but this, this is this is obviously
(32:18):
a very dramatic procedure, something that people cannot take lightly.
The there's so many possible complications, including the complication of infection.
Anytime you have any sort of transcranial implant. You know,
in general, having anything that protrudes from the body outward,
(32:40):
you know that that that breaks that skin barrier, that
is that is obviously a huge risk factor. So you've
got to be super super careful. Um, non invasive approaches
are problematic, like we said, but perhaps we will see
advances in that technology to make them more accurate, more precise,
so that if youwer, invasive surgeries have to be performed.
(33:03):
But that's a tall order. I mean, how do you
do that. We don't have the answer to that question yet.
Doesn't mean that we won't in the future, but right now,
it's just not a practical approach. Um, there's the possibility
of using this technology. We could do things beyond just
controlling robotic arms and cursors. And I don't mean to
diminish those accomplishments either, they are amazing. But we might
(33:26):
see an approach where exoskeleton suits could be uh come
into the pictures, where where people are actually able to
use their brains to control things like robotic legs and
regain movement, you know, actual mobility. Um, beyond you know,
laying in a bed and controlling something. They might actually
be able to move around with the assistance of technology,
which is again phenomenal that this is giving independence to
(33:50):
people who previously you would have said they're going to
be dependent upon caregivers for as long as they are alive.
Um and it's again a phenomenal kind of thing to
think about. It's further off in the future. We're not
anywhere close to where someone could actually um have control
of an exo skeleton suit in that manner, but it's
(34:11):
a goal to reach for. And then there's Elon Musk's idea,
which this is the one I was saying, probably similar
to what you were talking about with the stint uh
electrode the stint trode um. He also I wrote it's
Elon Musk and the Neural Lace, which sounds a lot
like a J. K. Rowling novel Harry Potter and the
(34:31):
Sorcerer's Stone. Elon Musk and the Neural Lace um. So.
Musk is of course famous for being a co founder
for Tesla and for SpaceX UM and he proposed an
implanable computer technology that would enhance human intelligence. So this
is more about what we were talking about at the
top of the show, the idea of instead of using
your brain necessarily to control some other outward computer. This
(34:53):
would be like a two way communication device where you're
not just sending signals out, You're you're accepting signals as
they come in. And the term neural lace comes from
a novelist named Ian M. Banks Favorites on stuff to
blow your mind. Interesting. I have not read any of
Banks's work, so I am. I was unfamiliar with his
(35:15):
work until I read this that, and he writes a
lot of science fiction that's uh full of ideas that
are worth talking about. Interesting. I'll have to I'll definitely
have to look into it. Then. Um, so this would
come in the form these these electrodes would come in
the form of flexible circuits that would be injected into
the bloodstream very similar to what Lauren was talking about,
(35:37):
through the neck and make their way up to the brain.
And then you bypass the need for invasive surgery. Um.
Assuming that you would be able to send a signal
out from the brain through the skull, that could be
you know, interact with whatever infrastructure you have around you. Right,
It's not like you could just magically control things with
your brain. You still have to have that infrastructure that's
(35:58):
designed to work with that her face. But his thought
is this is a way for human beings to get
ahead of that problem of h yeah, head and shoulders
above the problem of super intelligent artificial intelligence. Like his
his fear and muss I hope I'm not projecting too
(36:20):
much based upon my interpretation, But to me, it seems
that Musk's fear is that if we continue down the
road of developing artificial intelligence, sooner or later we will
receive we get to a point where we have super
human artificial intelligence, and then we will become nothing more
than pets to the AI. And that if we were
(36:41):
instead to incorporate technology so that AI becomes an inherent
component of humanity, that our intelligence is boosted by artificial
intelligence that's incorporated directly onto our brains, everything's fine, do
super math, Yes, we will the super intelligent to us,
the super intelligent AI will be us. Although I mean
(37:02):
I would I would argue, well, what stops the super
intelligent AI from tweaking the technology so that we all
just become its meat puppets? But who's who am I
to ask these questions? Yeah? That's interesting, But also I'm thinking, okay,
so it's better to first achieve super intelligence in uh
in on a substrate that is full of greed and
(37:26):
lust and revenge. Yeah, I also I also started thinking.
I also started thinking like, wouldn't computers maybe be a
better place to try it? I also think I also
started thinking about how the implications of this and immediately
started to feel kind of sick to my stomach because
he's talking about an interface where you would be able
to do things like excess Google without needing to touch
(37:49):
a computer. Right that you just think it, and you
can access it, and you can get the information, and
you've got it. It does not take a great leap
from that idea to go to the idea of essentially
the idea of telepathic communication. What what amounts to uh
technological telepathy where objecting ads into your brain? No, no, no,
(38:09):
I'm not thinking about ads. I'm thinking YouTube comments. I'm
thinking harassment, not being able to turn that off? Right?
Just imagine or so let's say, guys, I know that
you're familiar. The people in this room are familiar with
the idea of how sometimes certain sections of the Internet
can get upset about something and their response is to
(38:30):
attack whatever the target is relentlessly. Imagine that's happening, but
with essentially the technological equivalent to telepathy, that a person
has appeared to have done a wrong in some form,
whether they have or not is immaterial, because that's not
how the Internet works. The Internet doesn't really care if
(38:52):
the person is truly guilty. You were in a movie
I didn't like, so yeah, exactly really drive you crazy? Yeah? That,
And I mean I know that I'm going like super
twilight Zone with this idea, but but I mean I
see some potential drawbacks to solution. That's what I'm saying.
I would want these things to have, yes, like off switch,
like a mute switch. Yeah, like where you're like you're blocked,
(39:15):
You're blocked, you're blocked, You're blocked, everyone is blocked. I'm
just alone with my thoughts. Going to get some pancakes, yes, yeah,
except you can't order because you've turned off the signal
and they're like, I don't know what you want. I'm like,
I'm I am pointing to the picture. I am saying
the word pancakes isn't yeah, but are if you want
to order, you've gotta think pancakes. That's just the way.
(39:39):
I'm sorry, it's chip and pin and telepathy. Those are
the technologies that way depend on. I don't know. I mean,
I think as long as restaurants accept cash, they'll accept words.
Cash is meaningless in the in the the technological telepathic future,
it's just not gonna happen. I was assuming that if
you're that done with humanity, you're making your own pancakes.
(39:59):
You've not left your home, You're in your pajamas, your
cat is judging you, and you're making your own pancakes.
That's that's pretty much now. I mean, I don't have
a cat, but if I did have a cat, I
know it would be judging me. Yes, the incredible future
kind of like now, so interesting ideas, I don't I mean, obviously,
(40:20):
these are all things that would be pretty far away.
Even developing the technology where you would be able to
physically overlay those stent troads without invasive surgery, you still
have enormous barriers. Like it's one thing to put the
to physically put the electrodes on the surface of the brain.
It's a totally different thing to allow the brain to
(40:41):
actually access and receive information from an outside source wirelessly
just beamed in. It's not like we have a way
of doing that, right, Sure, and I should also put
in if I if I didn't mention explicitly that that
that DARPA research project was was being done in cheap
We're we're not quite human level at that one yet. Yeah,
telepathic sheep, that's actually scarier. So many different science fiction
(41:06):
novels are just coming to my mind as we go
through this, But that kind of wraps up where we
are today the update we wanted to give. Specifically, I
am very eager to see how this technology progresses because
its capacity to help people who are otherwise in in
very uh difficult situations, I think is phenomenal. Yeah, even
(41:30):
in the three years since we did that first uh
podcast episode about these types of projects, it's it's technology
has advanced so much. It's been amazing. It's it's pretty
it's pretty inspiring, honestly when you when you start looking
into these stories. And guys, if you have any suggestions
for future episodes, or you've got any questions, please send
(41:51):
them our away our email addresses FW thinking at how
stuff works dot com, or you can drop us a
line on Facebook or Twitter. If you go to Facebook
and search w thinking, our profile will pop up you
can leave us a message. We are f w Thinking
on Twitter, so you can always tweet at us and
we will talk to you again Willison. For more on
(42:15):
this topic in the future of technology, visit forward thinking
dot Com, brought to you by Toyota. Let's Go Places
Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to
Forward Thinking. Hey there, and welcome to Horward Thinking, the
podcast that looks at the future says, I blame myself
and I blame the machines. I'm Jonathan Strickland and I'm
(00:22):
Joe McCormick. In today, we're going to be revisiting a
topic we've looked at on this show before, but coming
coming at you with an update on the subject of
brain computer interfaces. Okay, the concept here is that you
train a computer to interpret your brain waves. Then you
think really hard about doing something, I mean not just
(00:43):
anything like like moving a cursor or or typing a
word or something like that, and then it happens. It's
like magic, but with more electrones. Exactly. So, brain computer
interfaces could be anything from an ability to to be
able to, like you say, move a cursor, type of
war and communicate or manipulate a robotic limb. There are
(01:04):
a lot of different like that, exactly. There are a
lot of different potential applications. But honestly, it just it
boils down to stripping away any sort of of interface
that would require movement, and it relies purely on thought right,
And of course that's the output half of it. There's
also the input half of it, where you could say
a brain you know, input oriented brain computer interface would
(01:25):
be getting stimuli without the use of your senses, maybe
like having an idea sent directly to your brain instead
of through your eyes or something so something like like
a a an interface where you are receiving information from
the outside world in some manner. For example, Uh, let's
(01:46):
one one thing we'll talk about towards the end of
the episode is the idea of being able to access, say,
the Internet, directly through your brain. Yeah. A common example
would be, you know, could we put some micro electrodes
in your visual corte x that would allow you to
see without seeing. You could have your you know, your
eyes closed but still perceive an image in your brain. Man,
(02:08):
sleeping would be so weird. Okay, I'm just looking through
the top of my head. No. Anyway, So we've got
a lot to say about this, but you may think,
if you're a long time listener, haven't you guys addressed
this before, Joe, you alluded to that. We actually have
quite a few times. A Yeah, and one of our
very early episodes was about this technology that was called
(02:28):
Computers on the Mind all from all the way back
in April. Pretty sure I titled that one. I'm pretty
sure that's accurate. That is not one of the greatest
of our punny title No, no, they're not all home runs. Anyway,
you're saying, I wish that we had a cricket sound board,
and here's that anyway. Yes, yes, as when we recorded
(02:51):
that first episode about it, there was some exploratory research
into brain computer interfaces that was really amazing that there
was this team out of out of mostly Brown University,
also involving Stanford and a bunch of other researchers calling
themselves brain Gate brain Gate, uh, that that had created
this interface that allowed a woman with quadriplegia to feed
(03:13):
herself using a robotic arm um. Uh. They also created
the first wireless implantable electrode that was being used at
the time in animal testing. But all of this was
fairly foundational work. Uh. And we've also talked of course
about brain computer interfaces more recently during discussions into computer
(03:33):
interfaces in general, episodes like your Body as a Computer
Interface from April of sixteen and did Minority Report shape
user interfaces, which was from September. The answer was yeah,
surprisingly like kind of upsettingly. Uh, that Minority Report is
(03:53):
a fine film, um, but but precog thing though serious. No,
I'm not going to get off on that. If I
do that the episodes over, I'll just be granting and raving.
Pray continue, thank you sir. Um. But yeah, so, so
all of those episodes focused more on on physical computer controls,
you know, like like a keyboards or or mice, or
(04:14):
or even touch screens or some some voice and gesture controls,
which are things that most of us use and are
used to. Um, But wouldn't it be nice if we
could just think at our computers and have them execute
our commands. It would be pretty sexy for everybody, really,
but but really especially useful for folks, uh, like that
woman with quadriplegia, who for whatever reason have trouble with
(04:37):
fine motor controls and or speech. So we thought that
today we would look into this topic again and kind
of see what the state of the brain computer interface
union is. But first let's let's talk Let's talk about
kind of like the basics, Like like, let's get that
ground level placed poor as it is, how how do
(04:59):
you make connection between a brain and a computer anyway.
It's not necessarily easy, but it's also not necessarily as
hard as you might imagine, because we already do share
a semi common language between brains and electronic machines, electrical machines,
which is electricity. Sure. Yeah, so so the brain, you
(05:20):
would say, communicates between cells via electrochemical potential, and by
using electrical charge, you can make the brain do what
it would normally be doing when when part of it
was activating. That's very imprecise language activating. But well it's
a pretty imprecise uh practice as well. I mean I
(05:44):
think I think we've gotten pretty good and making the
brain like totally overwhelmed. It's it's hard, Yeah, it's harder
to get very specific outcomes, right, like like to to
cause someone to have a specific sensation shin or trigger
a memory or anything like that. I mean, overwhelming the
(06:04):
brain not a problem if you want to just are
you just talking about electric shock there? Essentially. What's a
little easier, though, is training a computer training software. What
different brain signals in our our meaning? Like like like
if a person's brain lights up in a certain way, Ah,
(06:26):
what does that mean? Right? Right? So are they thinking
about what are they trying to do? So there's a
training process in any brain computer interface that has two components.
You're training the person to use the interface and your
train the computer on what the person's brain waves actually
are are linked towards. So you have a long, uh
(06:48):
training process. I hate to keep using that phrase, but
it's the most accurate. You have a very long training
process to get to a point where you can actually
do something useful. So a very very simple exam bowl
would be all right, let's let's talk about your your
basic brain computer interface, which tends to involve invasive surgery. Right,
(07:08):
you have to because e e g. S don't really
cut it, is the thing. Yeah, they're not electrodes. Um
your your brain, your your skull is not the very
best fair day cage, but it's pretty effective, actually exactly right.
So you need to get access to those sweet sweet
electrical uh ilse impulses on the brain surface. So typically
it involves uh brain surgery. You're actually opening up the
(07:32):
skull cap and you're putting overlaying maybe an array of
of sensors of electrodes on the surface of the brain.
Typically you don't go into the brain for this, it
does tend to be along the surface of the brain,
and then you have usually some sort of transcranial connector,
so it actually is going through the skull when you
(07:54):
reattach the skull to then wire typically to a computer system.
There are wireless ones as well, though those are earlier
in development and they still require transcranial ports. Right right,
You're still you're still putting something in the brain and
then like plugging a wireless device into the outside of
(08:14):
your skull. Yeah, yeah, it's there's not there's not a
way right now where we have truly wireless where it's
all within the skull itself and it's contained and therefore
you don't have any sign of a connector there. And
because again um that the bone is really surprisingly effective
at keeping electrical signals inside and outside based on where
(08:37):
they are. Yeah, it turns out, it turns out that's
a good thing for most of us most of the time. Yes, yeah,
but it's it does make it very difficult to interface
with a machine this way. So you then once you
have the connection, the physical connection or the wireless connection
from the person to the computer, you establish some form
of test that will start to train both the person
(09:00):
with the interface and the machine itself on working together.
And a typical one might be that the person is
looking at a picture of a ball, and there's a
second picture of a ball, and their job is to
imagine trying to force the one ball so that overlays
(09:21):
on top of the other one. So let's say one's
green and one's yellow, and so your your job is
to to imagine moving the green ball over top the
yellow ball, and you do this over and over and
over again. And there's actually a scoring system typically, and
it's one to help motivate the person who's who's training.
(09:42):
It's also meant to give feedback on all right, well,
because this was inconsistent between trials three and four, we
have to keep working on this in order for the
machine to understand what it is you are trying to do.
Otherwise it will misinterpret your thought and you could get
an erroneous salt. So if you're getting into something where
you're trying to say, type out a word and you're thinking,
(10:05):
I want the cursor to move to the letter T,
but the machine has misinterpreted that, you could end up
with typos and mistakes. So you go through this laborious
process where both the machine and the person learn and
then ultimately you reach a point where the machine has
a pretty good feel for what it means when you
(10:26):
think in a certain way in order to manipulate stuff,
and and that's when you get the results you wanted.
It is. I'm not gonna say it's inelegant. I think
it's an elegant solution, but it's an elegant solution that
takes a good deal of work and effort and time. Well,
I mean, one thing about that that occurs to me
immediately is that it seems quite personalized to the individual user,
(10:50):
not necessarily like if you design, say you're working on
a speech to text program or something, hopefully what you're
doing is you're you're training it for universal speech to text.
You know, if you're speaking, as long as you're speaking
in a way that people would normally be able to
understand the words you're saying without some kind of incredibly
thick accent or something, it's going to be able to
(11:12):
turn that into text. Would the same thing necessarily be true?
Would you know? So you would hook up one person's
brain and learn how to how to allow them to
control a computer cursor without touching the mouse or the keys,
just their brain. Could you then come and bring somebody
else in and hook their brain up and have them
do the same thing, certainly not yet. Yeah, it's I
(11:36):
mean you'd have to retrain them. Basically, you have to
retrain both the person and computer. Yeah, exactly, Yeah, it's
it's it's not a one size fits all kind of solution,
which is also why I get very skeptical whenever I
see any of those distractions, the games that have the
little e g. Style headset and you're supposed to focus
in order to make the game work, I get a
(11:58):
little I mean, if it's just trying to pick up
an increase in brainwave activity and that's all it's doing,
then it's kind of like just a dimmer switch, right,
Like there's nothing super sophisticated about it. But when it
gets to like more uh complicated claims that hey, if
you if you concentrate on the ball to go up,
the ball goes up, and if you concentrate on the
(12:20):
ball to go down, the ball goes down, and it's
a one size fits all kind of thing, I often
think that's more or less bologny. I mean, not that
it doesn't work at all, But it doesn't I doubt
it works in the way they're saying it works, and
it probably I mean, if it does work even vaguely
in the way that they say that it works, it
probably doesn't work very well. Yeah, because again, unfortunately, right now,
(12:43):
that surgery is an integral part of getting getting to
those juicy, juicy brainwaves. Yeah. So it was just last
year that we actually got to the point where a
wireless solution was even a thing. In that case, it's
not for humans, well yeah, yeah, well, and and the
wireless solution is is so exciting because because previously the
(13:08):
thing that you plug into your skull to to access
those electrodes is a tether. That's that's meaning the ear,
the ear tied to a laboratory in which that that
tether exists or or I mean, even if even if
it was available for like home use, you wouldn't be
able to be mobile while you were using this kind
of device. So so getting that that mobility and a
(13:28):
little bit more comfort for subjects who are who are
testing out this kind of stuff is is really critical
in moving towards a place where where it could be
actually useful for actual people in their actual lives, right,
And we've also seen progress that's akin to Moore's law,
the idea that over time, you can increase the abilities
(13:51):
of say a microprocessor by reducing the size of the
individual components. The same thing has been true for the
electrodes that have been used in this kind of thing,
all right, which is so cool because because anytime that
you put an implant in the brain, it's it's going
to cause a little bit of scarring in the brain tissue.
And that's scarring uh gets larger over time. Um. The
(14:12):
eventually the scar tissue begins to uh to degrade the
quality of the signal that the electrodes can send out
because it's it's it's a thicker it's a thicker material
than your normal brain stuff. It's almost like a callous
exactly exactly so um so so smaller implants equal less scarring,
equal better technology over time equal yea yeah. And obviously,
(14:34):
if you were to undergo a procedure where you are
going to have some sort of electrode array implanted in
your brain, you want it to last for as long
as it possibly can so that you don't have to
undergo a future procedure in order to correct any issues
from scarring exactly. So this is a this is a
huge advance, even though it's very talian. Uh. Yeah, and
(14:56):
hope hopefully, I like Jonathan said, it's currently that the
wireless stuff is only available for animal testing. Um, hopefully
a wireless device will be cleared for human testing soon.
That the last I heard about it in I believe
December of there was one company that was that was
working with the brain Gate project that was was submitting
(15:19):
a proposal to the FDA. So no word on that
as of Google today, right, but but you know, fingers cressed. Yeah,
and so let's kind of segue into some of the
work that's been done recently to help improve the approach
of brain computer interfaces. We we have to say, Ralph
(15:40):
the Bat, there's nothing that's like the the holy Grail
of brain computer interfaces that magically makes them work perfectly.
But we've seen some pretty cool advances. Yeah. There was
one story in particular that kind of spurred this this
episode two into creation that involved alves, monkeys, and hamlet. Yeah. Yeah,
(16:02):
and I I really I campaigned hard to cover this
for a show that we do called Hell Stuff Works.
Now because I'm a technology freak and a Shakespeare freak,
So the dual punch hit me right in the stern um. Uh.
So we're talking about a project that came out of
(16:22):
Stanford bio x. There was a group of scientists at
Stanford who were looking specifically at ways to improve brain
computer interfaces for people who have mobility issues. They said
that one of the biggest challenges they were facing was
that the interfaces that existed up to that point were
relatively slow, and frequently people were finding, uh it difficult
(16:45):
to use that they were there were it was inserting errors.
They were getting misspellings or typos or whatever. And that
causes frustration obviously. And I don't I know you guys, like,
if you've ever been working on a task that's particularly
hard and then you get frustrated, it suddenly seems like
the difficulty of that task is skyrocketed. It's like if
you're already trying to do something difficult on your computer
(17:08):
and then your computer starts getting slow. Yeah, isn't that
the best feeling? It's so frustrating. And have you ever
been playing a video game where there was a glitch
in it and and you were like like the controls
maybe like especially in older games, where like the controls
were already a little bit like like rough, like tank like,
and then all of a sudden, you just get to
a glitch where you're like, well, it's it's physically impossible
(17:28):
for me to beat this. Yeah, they're there's great. There
are times where you just you know, you feel that
level of frustration, and it it makes something that is
already challenging even more difficult, right like even if that
barrier were not there anymore, because of your frustration, your
ability to focus has has decreased, and so there was
(17:48):
a real need to try and improve this tech. Uh.
And in fact, there's a quote specifically from a piece
in Stanford News that said earlier versions of this technology
have already been tested successfully in people with paralysis, but
the typing was slow and imprecise. This latest work tests
improvements to the speed and accuracy of the technology that
interprets brain signals and drives the cursor. So in this case,
(18:11):
they're talking about an interface where you have like a
screen with a bunch of letters on it, and there's
a cursor as well, and you can concentrate and move
the cursor to the appropriate letter and then concentrate again
as if you were clicking on that letter and its selects. It.
It acts as a type, you know, like a typewriter,
(18:32):
but you're doing it very much a point like a
search and pack kind of approach, where instead of a finger,
you're using your brain. Now, the way they tested the
improvements to this technology, it was a bit unusual. They
used monkeys as test subjects. Not unusual, right, not unusual
for this. But they trained them to concentrate on symbols,
(18:54):
and then they had them transcribe passages from a couple
of different sources, the New York Times, some articles from
the New York Times. They used that as a test
um text to transcribe, and in one case Hamlet. So
that of course prompted people to make reference to that
old idea that if you stuck an infinite number of
(19:16):
monkeys in a room with an infinite number of typewriters,
sooner or later one of them would produce the complete
works of Shakespeare just by chance. Because the definition of
infinite is in an infinite number of monkeys. I always
thought it was this finite number of monkeys given infinite time.
Either way, it's same thing right. I feel like the
Douglas Adams version was infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, and infinite
(19:38):
If it were infinite monkeys and just one typewriter, boy,
who I'd imagine. But the infinite monkeys get the Shakespeare
done a lot faster than finite monkeys, you would imagine, Yeah,
infinite monkey. I don't know, do they. I mean, at
a certain point, is adding more monkeys help or hurt
the situation? It always helps. Adding more monkeys always happens.
Why you're the optimist. Three things. If you take nothing
(20:01):
else from this show, Ladies and gentlemen, take the words
of wisdom from Joe. Adding monkeys always helps. Um So
in this case, obviously the monkeys weren't typing up Hamlet
purely by chance, they were transcribing it, and in fact
only one was doing it. But yeah, and so, so
what what the researchers did here is they they implanted
(20:22):
electrodes into the monkey's motor cortexes and and the monkeys
were trained to move cursors around the screen first with
actual gestures, and the camera watched their movements while the
software was watching their brain waves. Thus the computer learned
what the monkeys intent to move looked like right, And
keep in mind, they had no comprehension of the text
(20:42):
as far as we are aware, they weren't suddenly all.
But they didn't all become subscribers to The New York
Times or aficionados of The Bard As far as we know,
none of them, as far as I'm aware, contacted Kenneth Bruna,
but several of them did become oxford Ians. There were
a couple of bacon Vans in the group. I'm not
(21:03):
gonna lie. Uh. They were literally just just replicating those
words by doing that that kind of cursor click approach
we were talking about, by concentrating. But despite those limitations,
despite those qualifiers, they were able to reach a speed
of around twelve words per minute, which was pretty impressive
for a monkey, Really pretty impressive considering the technology at all.
(21:27):
Absolutely so for fun, because I was curious. I thought
it might be interested to see how long it would
take a monkey to type out Hamlet in this way,
keeping in mind the monkey is again transcribing Hamlet, not
actually just spontaneously typing up the play. Right, Sure, but
I guess this means you have to pick a certain
version of Hamlet that's true. I I picked I picked
(21:50):
a pretty standard version, and I was I actually did
go to a site that gave like a number of
words for every work. Hamlet, by the way, in case
you're curious, is the longest of Shakespeare's plays by number
of words and by running time. If they're doing the
whole darn thing, it has thirty seven words. So at
(22:13):
twelve words per minute, it would take a monkey about
forty two point four hours to type out the whole thing.
But to replicate all of Shakespeare's plays and not as sonnets,
I didn't include the sonnets. But if you were to
replicate all of Shakespeare's plays, it would take about forty
days of typing at twelve words per minute. Uh so
now we know, right, Um, if you remove the chance part,
(22:35):
we got chance in there. We still that's still a mystery,
but it's it's still it's still like like certainly not
an infinite amount of time. No, that's a pretty I mean, yeah,
a month and a half right now, we do still
need to add more monkeys to Joe's point in order
to answer the other question. Now. They also pointed out
that they were not using any completion algorithms. The kind
of stuff that you might find in smartphones or some
(22:58):
computer programs, where you start type being a word and
it tries to guess what word you intend based upon
context and your frequency of using certain words, and it's
always wrong. It's frequently wrong, not necessarily. I actually had
autocomplete back before I started using swipe text, which is
just another exercise of futility that I apparently am determined
(23:22):
to continue to pursue. Um. When I was typing in
letter by letter, I noticed that autocomplete was more right
than wrong. But when it was wrong, it was hilariously wrong. Yeah,
and often in a way that makes you feel bad
about yourself or or it makes you feel weird about
who ever programmed that algorithm, because you're like, why would
(23:43):
they ever think I would use that word? Um? Oh,
I assume it's being like tailored to you. Right, it
is paying attention to your typing patterns well, and is
it not? It depends, right. Sometimes it's simply an algorithm
that just looks at the letters that you have typed
in so far, looks for words that have that sequence
of letters, and sometimes even can context within the sentence. Right,
(24:05):
So if if the letter the words leading up to
the word you are typing. If it would make sense
for you to say, like a, did I what's a
good one? Um? Did I leave the refrigerator door open?
And you're like r e u F. It might say, well,
it's probably refrigerator. Did I leave the It's either refrigerator
or it's referee. They've either left something in the fridge
(24:28):
or they've left a baseball game. I'm gonna take a
guess that this guy, who has never cared about sports ball,
I's talking about a fridge. Um. So it depends there's
some there's some typing in Uh, I don't know what
Oxford I in and it says, did you mean Tim Tebow?
It mind? Does that to me? Okay, well, that that
(24:50):
specific example. I was about to say, that's a very
expecific example on very odd but at any rate, they
did not use any completion algorithms this. However, they said
that that could potentially be something that to be included
in future implementations that could help speed up communication, as
long as it could be implemented in a way that
(25:12):
again did not increase frustration. If it's one of those
things where you know you you start searching the internet,
for all the the unintentionally hilarious auto complete or autocorrect
mistakes like, yeah, it's funny and a meme. But if
you're if you're someone for whom this is the only
way you can really communicate with others, it would be
(25:32):
incredibly awful. It would just be so frustrating. So, um
it's it's something that may and be incorporated into future implementations,
but as of right now, it is not part of
their their approach. Um Now, a lot of different uh,
research facilities have been looking into this, not just Stanford, right, Uh,
(25:56):
I mean there's there have been several research facilities around
the world, and there's some pretty um what's a good
word to put it, enthusiastic, but shadowy organizations that have
interests in this. So okay, here's the part where we
talk about a creepy thing that dark has been doing.
(26:17):
Um So, another barrier to this technology going mainstream is
the inherent danger in drilling a hole in someone's skull
and and implanting stuff in your brain. That's that's not
a good Tuesday for anybody, right, um so so So,
DARPA has been funding the development of a new medical
technology that they're calling a stent trode. Stent trode, Yes,
(26:42):
stent trode like a stint an electrode. Yeah, yeah yeah.
And with this no skull holes are required or no
new ones anyway, keep the ones that you already have. Um.
But but the the electrode. You take a stent and
you and you go in through a blood vessel in
the next to read the electrode up into the brain
and then you can monitor electrical signals happening in neurons nearby.
(27:07):
And I had the exact same reaction that Joe just
had when I was reading about this. That's creepy. There's
someone else who has a very similar idea that we'll
talk about in just a minute. But I think it's
probably the same general technological approach that you're talking about.
It's just that's not the way I read it when
I was looking into it. But it makes way more
sense the way you're describing it. I mean, one thing
(27:28):
we should emphasize again is that there are also people
talking about non invasive methods and and using noninvasive methods
of reading the brain. They just lack precision and power,
or in some cases they're they're plenty precise, and there
are plenty powerful, but they require you to be inside
an m R I machine. Right, Yeah, yeah, we haven't
mentioned that part yet. Uh. Yes, some of you might
(27:51):
have been thinking earlier in this episode when we were
talking about how surgery is necessary because of the preciseness
imprecisity of of other methods of reading brain signals. You're thinking, oh,
m R I. M r s are really great at
reading brain signals, but they also require you to lay
perfectly still in a very giant, very expensive, very noisy machine,
(28:12):
um for the entirety of the time that you were
using them. Therefore, if you're trying to do it to
like talk to somebody or you know, eat food, that's
not as practical. That's a pretty good premise for a
future sci fi scenario where people are walking around with
m R I hats like they've got a they've got
a giant machine propped on their shoulders. They've got really
(28:34):
powerful bodies from walking around with these things. I guess
the supervillain in this in this world would be Phero
magnetic Man, because you don't want to have any of
that near you. Um so so other other than Pharaoh
magnetic Man. And uh and this lovely Mr I future.
What else could the future possibly hold for brain computer
(28:56):
interface type devices, y'all? So obviously, just getting a deeper
understanding of the brain in general is going to be
a huge help for multiple disciplines, not just creating better
brain computer interfaces, but all sorts of things. Uh. And
we have have stressed on this show multiple times how
we are at just the very dawn of our understanding
(29:19):
of the human brain. It is an incredibly complex oregon,
and we only have an inkling of what is going
on up there. We've got a pretty good grasp of
some basics, but when it gets down to the particulars,
it gets really complicated. Uh. Well, we're also going to
see improvements in the machine learning side, as computers get
(29:40):
better and better at interpreting what our signals mean. Similar
to what we saw with the Stanford experiment, I would
imagine that we would see that words per minute start
to climb a little more each time we get a
little bit better at this. Ah, the surgical procedure thing,
that's obviously a huge barrier. Obviously, I mean people who
are are going this, uh, they often are are people
(30:03):
who feel like they have really no other alternative. And
that is something that they want for themselves. And uh yeah,
like like having a whole drilled in your skull will
lead to a better quality of life kind of situations,
which which of course I'm not making light of it,
like like that's that's a very real reality for for
(30:23):
for a good number of people. And this kind of
this kind of volunteer research has has been tremendous. Yes, yes,
there's some really inspiring videos about people who have undergone
procedures like this and when you see the change in
their behaviors after the procedure is done. I mean, if
you're any sort of empathetic person like me, you will
(30:48):
find yourself holding back tears at your desk. Yeah, there's
a video I think from of of a woman using
the brain Gate robotic arm technology to to serve herself
coffee for the first time in years. And it's and
it's and it sounds like very simple things. The one
I saw, I'm gonna get a all Tier two Joe's like,
(31:09):
good Greek guys, come on, I want to get out
of here. The one I saw it was a guy
who um had suffered an accident, was paralyzed from the
neck down and under he underwent uh surgical procedure, and
in that case it was also to control a robotic arm.
He did the whole training procedure I talked about. In fact,
the video showed the example I gave about moving a
(31:32):
ball over another ball with you know, doing that over
and over again. And that was just to train the
brain so that when the the they hooked him up
to the robotic arm, which was you know, just completely
separate from him, that um that it would the robotic
arm would would follow general instructions based upon that training sequence.
He uh then the first time they hooked him up,
(31:56):
was able to uh reach out and take his girlfriend's hand,
and that killed me. He's like, I was able to
hold my girlfriend's hand for the first time in years
because of this. And I was like, I'm like, I'm done.
I'm done. I need a quiet room. Gonna go book
the quiet room. Like when you hear the muffled snuffling,
that's me. So but this, this is this is obviously
(32:18):
a very dramatic procedure, something that people cannot take lightly.
The there's so many possible complications, including the complication of infection.
Anytime you have any sort of transcranial implant. You know,
in general, having anything that protrudes from the body outward,
(32:40):
you know that that that breaks that skin barrier, that
is that is obviously a huge risk factor. So you've
got to be super super careful. Um, non invasive approaches
are problematic, like we said, but perhaps we will see
advances in that technology to make them more accurate, more precise,
so that if youwer, invasive surgeries have to be performed.
(33:03):
But that's a tall order. I mean, how do you
do that. We don't have the answer to that question yet.
Doesn't mean that we won't in the future, but right now,
it's just not a practical approach. Um, there's the possibility
of using this technology. We could do things beyond just
controlling robotic arms and cursors. And I don't mean to
diminish those accomplishments either, they are amazing. But we might
(33:26):
see an approach where exoskeleton suits could be uh come
into the pictures, where where people are actually able to
use their brains to control things like robotic legs and
regain movement, you know, actual mobility. Um, beyond you know,
laying in a bed and controlling something. They might actually
be able to move around with the assistance of technology,
which is again phenomenal that this is giving independence to
(33:50):
people who previously you would have said they're going to
be dependent upon caregivers for as long as they are alive.
Um and it's again a phenomenal kind of thing to
think about. It's further off in the future. We're not
anywhere close to where someone could actually um have control
of an exo skeleton suit in that manner, but it's
(34:11):
a goal to reach for. And then there's Elon Musk's idea,
which this is the one I was saying, probably similar
to what you were talking about with the stint uh
electrode the stint trode um. He also I wrote it's
Elon Musk and the Neural Lace, which sounds a lot
like a J. K. Rowling novel Harry Potter and the
(34:31):
Sorcerer's Stone. Elon Musk and the Neural Lace um. So.
Musk is of course famous for being a co founder
for Tesla and for SpaceX UM and he proposed an
implanable computer technology that would enhance human intelligence. So this
is more about what we were talking about at the
top of the show, the idea of instead of using
your brain necessarily to control some other outward computer. This
(34:53):
would be like a two way communication device where you're
not just sending signals out, You're you're accepting signals as
they come in. And the term neural lace comes from
a novelist named Ian M. Banks Favorites on stuff to
blow your mind. Interesting. I have not read any of
Banks's work, so I am. I was unfamiliar with his
(35:15):
work until I read this that, and he writes a
lot of science fiction that's uh full of ideas that
are worth talking about. Interesting. I'll have to I'll definitely
have to look into it. Then. Um, so this would
come in the form these these electrodes would come in
the form of flexible circuits that would be injected into
the bloodstream very similar to what Lauren was talking about,
(35:37):
through the neck and make their way up to the brain.
And then you bypass the need for invasive surgery. Um.
Assuming that you would be able to send a signal
out from the brain through the skull, that could be
you know, interact with whatever infrastructure you have around you. Right,
It's not like you could just magically control things with
your brain. You still have to have that infrastructure that's
(35:58):
designed to work with that her face. But his thought
is this is a way for human beings to get
ahead of that problem of h yeah, head and shoulders
above the problem of super intelligent artificial intelligence. Like his
his fear and muss I hope I'm not projecting too
(36:20):
much based upon my interpretation, But to me, it seems
that Musk's fear is that if we continue down the
road of developing artificial intelligence, sooner or later we will
receive we get to a point where we have super
human artificial intelligence, and then we will become nothing more
than pets to the AI. And that if we were
(36:41):
instead to incorporate technology so that AI becomes an inherent
component of humanity, that our intelligence is boosted by artificial
intelligence that's incorporated directly onto our brains, everything's fine, do
super math, Yes, we will the super intelligent to us,
the super intelligent AI will be us. Although I mean
(37:02):
I would I would argue, well, what stops the super
intelligent AI from tweaking the technology so that we all
just become its meat puppets? But who's who am I
to ask these questions? Yeah? That's interesting, But also I'm thinking, okay,
so it's better to first achieve super intelligence in uh
in on a substrate that is full of greed and
(37:26):
lust and revenge. Yeah, I also I also started thinking.
I also started thinking like, wouldn't computers maybe be a
better place to try it? I also think I also
started thinking about how the implications of this and immediately
started to feel kind of sick to my stomach because
he's talking about an interface where you would be able
to do things like excess Google without needing to touch
(37:49):
a computer. Right that you just think it, and you
can access it, and you can get the information, and
you've got it. It does not take a great leap
from that idea to go to the idea of essentially
the idea of telepathic communication. What what amounts to uh
technological telepathy where objecting ads into your brain? No, no, no,
(38:09):
I'm not thinking about ads. I'm thinking YouTube comments. I'm
thinking harassment, not being able to turn that off? Right?
Just imagine or so let's say, guys, I know that
you're familiar. The people in this room are familiar with
the idea of how sometimes certain sections of the Internet
can get upset about something and their response is to
(38:30):
attack whatever the target is relentlessly. Imagine that's happening, but
with essentially the technological equivalent to telepathy, that a person
has appeared to have done a wrong in some form,
whether they have or not is immaterial, because that's not
how the Internet works. The Internet doesn't really care if
(38:52):
the person is truly guilty. You were in a movie
I didn't like, so yeah, exactly really drive you crazy? Yeah? That,
And I mean I know that I'm going like super
twilight Zone with this idea, but but I mean I
see some potential drawbacks to solution. That's what I'm saying.
I would want these things to have, yes, like off switch,
like a mute switch. Yeah, like where you're like you're blocked,
(39:15):
You're blocked, you're blocked, You're blocked, everyone is blocked. I'm
just alone with my thoughts. Going to get some pancakes, yes, yeah,
except you can't order because you've turned off the signal
and they're like, I don't know what you want. I'm like,
I'm I am pointing to the picture. I am saying
the word pancakes isn't yeah, but are if you want
to order, you've gotta think pancakes. That's just the way.
(39:39):
I'm sorry, it's chip and pin and telepathy. Those are
the technologies that way depend on. I don't know. I mean,
I think as long as restaurants accept cash, they'll accept words.
Cash is meaningless in the in the the technological telepathic future,
it's just not gonna happen. I was assuming that if
you're that done with humanity, you're making your own pancakes.
(39:59):
You've not left your home, You're in your pajamas, your
cat is judging you, and you're making your own pancakes.
That's that's pretty much now. I mean, I don't have
a cat, but if I did have a cat, I
know it would be judging me. Yes, the incredible future
kind of like now, so interesting ideas, I don't I mean, obviously,
(40:20):
these are all things that would be pretty far away.
Even developing the technology where you would be able to
physically overlay those stent troads without invasive surgery, you still
have enormous barriers. Like it's one thing to put the
to physically put the electrodes on the surface of the brain.
It's a totally different thing to allow the brain to
(40:41):
actually access and receive information from an outside source wirelessly
just beamed in. It's not like we have a way
of doing that, right, Sure, and I should also put
in if I if I didn't mention explicitly that that
that DARPA research project was was being done in cheap
We're we're not quite human level at that one yet. Yeah,
telepathic sheep, that's actually scarier. So many different science fiction
(41:06):
novels are just coming to my mind as we go
through this, But that kind of wraps up where we
are today the update we wanted to give. Specifically, I
am very eager to see how this technology progresses because
its capacity to help people who are otherwise in in
very uh difficult situations, I think is phenomenal. Yeah, even
(41:30):
in the three years since we did that first uh
podcast episode about these types of projects, it's it's technology
has advanced so much. It's been amazing. It's it's pretty
it's pretty inspiring, honestly when you when you start looking
into these stories. And guys, if you have any suggestions
for future episodes, or you've got any questions, please send
(41:51):
them our away our email addresses FW thinking at how
stuff works dot com, or you can drop us a
line on Facebook or Twitter. If you go to Facebook
and search w thinking, our profile will pop up you
can leave us a message. We are f w Thinking
on Twitter, so you can always tweet at us and
we will talk to you again Willison. For more on
(42:15):
this topic in the future of technology, visit forward thinking
dot Com, brought to you by Toyota. Let's Go Places
Fw:Thinking News
Hosts And Creators
Jonathan Strickland
Joe McCormick
Lauren Vogelbaum
Popular Podcasts
1. The Podium
The Podium: An NBC Olympic and Paralympic podcast. Join us for insider coverage during the intense competition at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. In the run-up to the Opening Ceremony, we’ll bring you deep into the stories and events that have you know and those you'll be hard-pressed to forget.
2. In The Village
In The Village will take you into the most exclusive areas of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games to explore the daily life of athletes, complete with all the funny, mundane and unexpected things you learn off the field of play. Join Elizabeth Beisel as she sits down with Olympians each day in Paris.
3. iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2024 Olympics.