Major Breakthrough in Direct Neural Interface

jd writes "In a major breakthrough, neurologists are reporting that they can decypher neurological impulses into speech with an 80% accuracy. A paralyzed man who is incapable of speech has electrodes implanted in his brain which detect the electrical pulses in the brain relating to speech. These signals are then fed into computers which covert these pulses into signals suitable for speech synthesis. As a biotech marvel, this is astonishing. Depending on the rate of development it is possible to imagine Professor Hawking migrating to this, as it would be immune to any further loss of body movement and would vastly accelerate his ability to talk. On the flip-side, direct brain I/O is also a major step towards William Gibson's Neuromancer and other cyberpunk dark futures."

Make sure that...

[Starteck81]

...your antivirus software is up-to-date before you plug your brain in cause I hear it really sucks when your brain Snow Crashes [wikipedia.org]!

what if

[rucs_hack]

The subject turns out to have Tourettes syndrome?

OI! [redacted] will you [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] make me a [redacted][redacted][redacted] cup of [redacted] coffee?

Brain obscenity filters for teh wins....

As Fleet Captain Pike said..

[Rob T Firefly]

"Beeeeeep." [memory-alpha.org]

What about the babies??

[rambag]

Would a device like this work on someone who doesn't know how to speak english or better yet a baby that speaks no language at all, if so then we just invented the universal translator, live long and prosper trekkies.

What drives modern science?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

What drives the advances of the last couple decades?

Two desires:

1. To restore Stephen Hawking's physical body to its former fully-functional form.

2. To turn Stephen Hawking into a mobile, indestructible cyborg of incomprehensible power.

Re:80% accurracy?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

80% accuracy is NOWHERE near good enough.

It's good enough to get you elected president - twice.

Re:Really accurate?

[QRDeNameland]

How do they know they're accurately converting the signals to sound, if they're basing this off a man who has no ability to speak?

I can see it going something like this...

Researcher: "The machine translates his electrical pulses as 'I'd really enjoy a blowjob from your assistant, Ms. Jenkins.' Ms. Jenkins, do you mind?"

Ms. Jenkins: "Anything in the name of science!!"

Researcher: "Well, that ear-to-ear smile is conclusive proof that he is in fact enjoying it. Eureka, it works!!!"

Been done!

[Sqweegee]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39133 [theonion.com]

"With the new exoskeleton, Stephen will be able to safely handle radioactive isotopes in the high-radiation area of the new supercollider particle accelerator. And his new robo-arms are capable of ripping open enemy tanks like they were nutshells,"

Re:Really accurate?

[Thought1]

They know it's accurate because the voice translation told them it was! It then said something about "robotic voice translator overlords..." We're not sure about that bit. (:

Re:Really accurate?

[vux984]

They know it's accurate because the voice translation told them it was! It then said something about "robotic voice translator overlords..." We're not sure about that bit. (:

Hence the 80%.

This could be really embarrasing for users

[JustNiz]

how would it bea ble to differentiate between "out loud" voice and private thoughts? This could be really embarrasing for users. Imagine if a secretary (or nurse) walks by when you're in the middle of speaking or dictating a letter:

Dear sir,
I am writing wow nice tits and she has a great ass too uh oh wedding ring in order to ask if you would be interested in our new product line of neural-input word processors.

Re:More info

[WombatDeath]

Cool! With a bit more work he'll be able to join in the chorus of Old MacDonald.

Re:Wait-- they haven't actually done this yet

[noidentity]

It's OK, the editors are only able to decipher what TFA says some 80% of the time.

Re:Really accurate?

[deathy_epl+ccs]

How do they know they're accurately converting the signals to sound, if they're basing this off a man who has no ability to speak?

That was the easy part... they were able to start with the assumption that he just kept repeating "kill me" over and over again.

Re:What?

[noidentity]

Apparently, a fortunate side-effect of this condition is it impairs the part of your brain that would normally find this horrific and intolerable and leaves you with a weird sense of acceptance and well-being (IIRC).

I think something similar is happening in the US.

Re:Really accurate?

[dintech]

Now you are just putting words in his mouth. :)

Re:Really accurate?

[Lord Apathy]

This is great. Now all we have to do is reverse the fucker so it figures out 80% garbage and 20% signal. Then we attach it to congress critters, lawyers, and RIAA stoges. Now we don't have to listen to their shit at all anymore.

Re:More info

[fair_n_hite_451]

"oh-ee-oh"

Well, he can already do a voice over part of the Flying Monkey Chorus if they ever remake the Wizard of Oz.

This tech is so cool it's not funny.

That extra 20% probably wasn't important anyway...

[uhlume]

Subject's first words? "Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all."

Just make sure the interface....

[StressGuy]

...is in the right part of the circut

I don't always want my "first throught" to be the one that gets verbalized, know what I mean?

Hi Mrs. Johnson, nice tits!....buts a little big though

Oh shit....did I say that out loud?

Re:Really accurate?

[Harmonious Botch]

No need; Ms Jenkins is reputed to be quite competent. ;-)

Re:Really accurate?

[sorak]

Many people who are unable to speak are able to communicate in some other way (usually, some form of gesture, whether sign language, nodding, blinking, whatever.) It doesn't take a much to be able to indicate "right" or "wrong".

Remember, it's only 80% accurate. It may be more like "rigm!" or "prong!"

Obligatory

[Guppy06]

Dear aunt, let's so double the killer delete select all.

Re:Really accurate?

[Beardo the Bearded]

"Wow, it's actually picking up what I'm salmon."

"Wait, what?"

Well, there's my extra marks for funny. Now for the serious part:

I've taught a few people who couldn't speak how to work their voice. In one case, she would talk a little like Boomhauer from King of the Hiil. "Daddy, mumble mumble me mumble mumble juice mumble mumble counter?" Once she got used to the feedback and the system, she would fill in the mumbled parts with the correct conjunctions. Perhaps that's how the 80% is getting in there. The general idea is understandable, but the syntax is a little peculiar when it comes to the non-critical components of the sentence. Give the guy a few years to work with the implant and I'll bet that his speech will improve.

Alternatively, the scientists might all be Gen-Y text messengers who can't understand complete sentences.

"Excuse me, can you get me a phone? I would like to call my wife and tell her I can talk."

"w8? UR tk :D lol lol"

Re:What drives modern science?

[ByteSlicer]

3. Cowboy Neal

Re:Really accurate?

[fbjon]

Reportedly, the first words spoken through this interface were:

"Frist wrods!!"

First words?

[PRMan]

No, it was "Hello, World" of course...