Technology

60079 readers

3324 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

398

First human brain implant malfunctioned, Neuralink says (thehill.com)

submitted 7 months ago by AnActOfCreation@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

151 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The first Neuralink implant in a human malfunctioned after several threads recording neural activity retracted from the brain, the Elon Musk-owned startup revealed Wednesday.

The threads retracted in the weeks following the surgery in late January that placed the Neuralink hardware in 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh’s brain, the company said in a blog post.

This reduced the number of effective electrodes and the ability of Arbaugh, a quadriplegic, to control a computer cursor with his brain.

“In response to this change, we modified the recording algorithm to be more sensitive to neural population signals, improved the techniques to translate these signals into cursor movements, and enhanced the user interface,” Neuralink said in the blog post.

The company said the adjustments resulted in a “rapid and sustained improvement” in bits-per-second, a measure of speed and accuracy of cursor control, surpassing Arbaugh’s initial performance.

While the problem doesn’t appear to pose a risk to Arbaugh’s safety, Neuralink reportedly floated the idea of removing his implant, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The company has also told the Food and Drug Administration that it believes it has a solution for the issue that occurred with Arbaugh’s implant, the Journal reported.

The implant was placed just more than 100 days ago. In the blog post, the company touted Arbaugh’s ability to play online computer games, browse the internet, livestream and use other applications “all by controlling a cursor with his mind.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It would certainly be limited and rudimentary; I wouldn't suggest a solution exists capable of any broad nuance. But gesture is a unique variety of communication, in that it can convey "innate" meaning in ways verbal language simply cannot, except in the case of onomatopoeia. Pointing is nearly universal, smiling is nearly universal, beckoning is nearly universal. Gesture is a spatial form of communication, centered around our primary means of material interaction with the world.

Grammar and syntax aside, I'd argue that it would be possible to assemble a vocabulary of universal concepts (eat, drink, sleep, travel, me, you, communicate, cooperate, come here, go away, etc). Certainly not a language for extended detailed conversation, but a codification and extension of gestures which are already nearly universal by virtue of their innate implications alone. Enough to communicate that you're hungry, but not enough to send for takeout.

A universal language, at the level of any other sophisticated language, is obviously impossible. A formal codification of simple gestures to communicate at the most basic human concepts is much more doable.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I can tell you only speak one language, or maybe another Latin based language in addition to English. If you'd learned something like Mandarin, you'd understand how complex, regional, and historical language is. It's based on layers and shifts constantly. Sometimes, that's specifically because people don't want to be understood by everyone.

I really recommend reading academic books about this topic if you are curious. My favorite is Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology, by David Caplan. You may also enjoy Chomsky's works because he talks about commonalities in language or universal language.

There's no need to formally codify those hand gestures, because we innately already understand and make them. Making eating motions (which may look different depending on regional utensils) is pretty universal right? But it looks different in different places.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I am familiar with the regionality of language. I don't understand your point, you're simultaneously saying that you can't have universal understanding, but we have gestures we instantly understand instantly so there's no need to codify them, but they look different.

I think you're wildly overestimating the scope of my proposal.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You are simply moving goalposts. My point is that I disagree with your idea of making sign language universal or formally making even a rudimentary universal sign language. I think that would be impossible if you understand language itself. I gave you resources so you could educate yourself about why.

Yes, the sign for eating would look different in China vs Ethiopia vs the US. So what sign are you going to have it be to imitate eating in your formal language? Do you see how this can perpetuate colonization?

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My goalposts are in precisely the place they started: a collection of basic international gestures to facilitate the most basic communication. Where are you jumping to colonization? Where did I say that my cultural group gets to decide what the signs are? You're, again, wildly overestimating the scope of my proposal and jumping to ridiculous, unsubstantiated conclusions.

You get a group of signers from around the world to develop an international pidgin (like they already do informally at international gatherings) and come to consensus based on commonality. When the majority agree on a sign, use it. Where there's little agreement, choose a new sign. No finger spelling, no complex abstract concepts, just a formalization of gestures most people could probably figure out anyway. I fail to see how that perpetuates colonization unless that's what you're setting out to do with your methodology.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I didn't provide a conclusion, I asked you a question - how do you pick the official, global sign for eating? What will it look like?

come to consensus based on commonality. When the majority agree on a sign, use it So then why even debate? If majority decides, why not just use Chinese sign language for everything?

If you can't understand the colonization aspect, then please read the books/authors I listed previously. Having a majority decide language for others/everyone is pretty classic colonization. That's part of why native Americans were forced to learn English (many of your arguments are very similar to why colonizers believed English should be established as a global lingua franca)

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

"It would be nice to develop an auxiliary sign language to bridge the accessibility gap between the hard of hearing and those who don't learn a dedicated sign"

"You're just as bad as the colonizers that decimated native American cultures"

Get out of here with that bad faith savior complex nonsense. Teaching indigenous people English wasn't the problem, the problem was beating children for using their native language. I guess you think literacy is racist too because literacy requirements were used to disenfranchise black Americans, huh?

Your sanctimonious colonization comments are dripping with irony. I asked a question, directly to another person, about their opinion of the concept as a deaf/hard of hearing person. You interceded uninvited, deliberately ignored the explicitly stated context of the question (gestural languages having unique properties from verbal ones) so you could shoehorn in your opinion about a topic explicitly excluded by that context, which you smugly assumed I wasn't familiar with, purporting the relevance by referencing authors who wrote very little about the actual topic at hand.

You want to talk about colonizers, look at your own actions here.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

Never said that. Strawman. 🥱