DARPA Wants Computers That Fuse With Higher Human Brain Function 109
coondoggie writes "In the never-ending quest to get computers to process, really understand and actually reason, scientists at Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency want to look more deeply into how computers can mimic a key portion of our brain. The military's advanced research group recently put out a call, or Request For information, on how it could develop systems that go beyond machine learning, Bayesian techniques, and graphical technology to solve 'extraordinarily difficult recognition problems in real-time.'"
The Inevitable Future (Score:2)
Sooner or later some evil person is going to figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human being into a "supersoldier," in a way that will compromise the long term health or well being of he human being.
Then everybody else is going to do the same awful thing, just to compete. Because they 'have to.'
Re:The Inevitable Future (Score:5, Informative)
"supersoldier," in a way that will compromise the long term health or well being of he human being.
I think the idea is to compromise the health of the other human being.
spoiler alert (Score:1)
I fully agree with you, including the Continuum part, but couldn't you put a spoiler alert before saying it? If I hadn't watched it I would be pretty much pissed off.
Re: (Score:1)
I fully agree with you, including the Continuum part, but couldn't you put a spoiler alert before saying it? If I hadn't watched it I would be pretty much pissed off.
S/Continuum/Matrix/
That better?
Or do we still need a spoiler alert for that one too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your second link. I was not aware of the other. It seems interesting, have you watched it?
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points, +1 to parent.
Though sadly, given the attitude current politicians over the last 15 years have shown to the military class, I'd have to say neither side's soldier's health even rates a concern.
Re: (Score:2)
"supersoldier," in a way that will compromise the long term health or well being of he human being.
I think the idea is to compromise the health of the other human being.
Well, the solution is deceptively simple: take the other human being and fuse a computer in her/his brain.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The Inevitable Future (Score:5, Interesting)
Sooner or later some evil person is going to figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human being into a "supersoldier," in a way that will compromise the long term health or well being of he human being.
Or, alternately, some decent person will figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human being in a way that removes physical disabilities and/or existing physiological limitations, and amplifies intelligence to the point where we can effortlessly accomplish in a day what once took a week or more. It's not just military mad scientists who daydream about brain-computer interfaces and other forms of human enhancement; these technologies have potential far beyond warfare. I know I'm not the only person who has fantasized about what life would be like if I could have instant recall of any information available on the network, while running along 50km of undeveloped coastline. Instead, I'm sitting on in my Aeron in front of the computer, looking out the window as a beautiful day passes by, and wishing I could run for more than five minutes without shooting pains in my legs and lungs. So, honestly, I hope DARPA hurries up with this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what I want. This is one of the reasons I went back to school and am almost done with a degree in chemical and biological engineering. I want BCI. I want to replace all my organic components with robotic ones once they get better. I love the idea of turning myself fully into a robot once that technology works and spending a VERY long time exploring, learning etc.
I would love it if I could get a job working on this project. Sure it will be used for military applications but a lot of the stuff develop
Re: (Score:3)
Your fantasies are the sort of thing a young child would entertain.
But not the sort that a young child can attain.
The reality is going to be a lot less pleasant, because those in power ( and you might not be one of them, chum ) will make sure this is true, as they always have since the dawn of mankind.
There are things more powerful than the shadowy people holding you back. Ideas such as this are some of those things.
Re: (Score:2)
My view is that if you never try you can never succeed.
There are a lot of positive things going on in this world that most people just never hear about. Negativity sells and that is what is mostly reported. However, the amount of research for things like nano-medicines, prognostics, biotech etc is just amazing.
10 years ago the state of the art prosthetic was basically a hook. Now we can do basic wiring up to the nervous system and in the last few months an artificial skin more sensitive than ours and a MUCH
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't get why so many people are so negative or consider it to be some kind of dream to want to try and improve the world in any way.
Because people grow up and realize that the fantasies they had as a child won't actually become reality, and it makes them bitter. Because they see youthful optimism and exuberance and it makes them more bitter, and the only way they can feel better is to bring a little more despair and anger into everyone else's life. Most of them, growing up, probably had a more ide
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I see is that these things will remain a fantasy so long as people don't really work to make things better. How can we truly progress when so many are convinced that it is not possible and they usually even stand in the way at every opportunity?
I just find it amazing that people can look at the advances we have made in biotech, nanotech and computer technology in the last 10 years and can't see some of the huge changes being made and the very positive things happening as a result.
We have come up
Re: (Score:2)
"I just don't get why so many people are so negative or consider it to be some kind of dream to want to try and improve the world in any way."
Far easier to carp than contribute.
For those unable to do much of the latter, going negative boosts their estimation of self.
Especially for the young, snark is seen as what the cool kids do.
Some just like to try to inflict hurt. They get off on it.
If there is ever any rational, useful basis, it involves each one's definition of "improve the world" but that would requ
Re: The Inevitable Future (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
decent person will figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human
Perhaps. However, it would be very unlikely that this power to control a human mind would not find it's way immediately into political or military advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, alternately, some decent person will figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human being in a way that removes physical disabilities and/or existing physiological limitations, and amplifies intelligence to the point where we can effortlessly accomplish in a day what once took a week or more.
Well, sure they might, but probably not while working on a project for the US DoD.
Re:The Inevitable Future (Score:4, Informative)
Advances in military technology trickle down to civilian life all the time. Radar, computers, jet engines, satellites, the list goes on. (Oh, and the Internet, which I already mentioned below.) Battlefield medicine has made huge advances too, which are applicable to injuries that have nothing to do with warfare. The big area where I think there has been too little transfer is rocketry, where federal regulations severely restrict employment and the availability of technology.
I don't view any of this as an actual justification for military spending - I'm firmly in the camp that believes the US should be like Switzerland with nukes. But it's simply ignorant of history to claim that military research never benefits anyone but the military.
Re: (Score:2)
War has always accelerated technology development.
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons technology has been evolving ever since there were enough humans to pick sides and started fighting about who gets the bigger cave. During war there is no such thing as a budget. Money doesn't enter the picture and if your country is facing defeat everyone will certainly be motivated. One example would be the British radar technology. If Germany had not been gathering on the other side of the channel threatening invasion their radar technology would not have advanced as much as it did. In contrast
Re: (Score:2)
The military also introduced tents capable of collecting solar energy to power their field camps. It reduced the reliance on gas powered generators.
Re: (Score:2)
There in lies the problem. For every person who wants to make someone walk again, there are ten people who want to design someone who can kill someone that much quicker. It's a fucking racial imperative, and we don't even know why.
It never ceases to amaze me that for all the hardware the human brain possess, we are so bad at many of the tasks we perform. I mean, it's ludicrous to think how the avian or reptilian or cetacean or insect or even other mammalian species can perform advanced calculations in 1/100
Re:The Inevitable Future (Score:4, Insightful)
It never ceases to amaze me that for all the hardware the human brain possess, we are so bad at many of the tasks we perform. I mean, it's ludicrous to think how the avian or reptilian or cetacean or insect or even other mammalian species can perform advanced calculations in 1/100th the amount of time that it takes a human mind to complete the same damn calculation. I find that deeply troubling. A freaking spider can scan a series of stems, like a mainframe computer, and determine which one is the right one to climb, with a brain less than the size of a pin...and yet a human child, of several years of age, might fail at even understanding the task to be performed, let alone performing the task itself.
Part of evolution involves specialization, and we lose certain instincts or abilities that are unnecessary for maximum fitness. We don't have the speed of a cheetah, or the sense of smell of a bloodhound, or the vision of a falcon either. Instead, we ended up with verbal communication, opposable thumbs, and creativity and intuition beyond anything we've observed so far in the animal world. Seems like a fair tradeoff to me.
Re: (Score:3)
"Are we missing a gene or something?"
You raise good points.
Thing is, that's stuff those critters do the same way all the time because that's all that's needed.
I think it has to do with humans being much more open-ended. We have many more possibilities of what we might do with what we find at hand, let alone what we might contrive to aid the doing of something. Some things are simpler - we used to pick something edible and ate it; then we poked a hole in the ground and planted a seed or slip; then we built
Re: (Score:2)
Who's to say this has not already been done? Ever wonder why this reality seems so wrong? Why humans are so good at destroying things, at jeering, insulting one another, hurting each other, at hate in general, and so terrible at peace? Humanity has probably done this to itself a dozen, if not a hundred or thousand times already; and each time, the violence gets worse.
Look at the current state of humanity: our leaders have to hold constant wars to keep the populace in check. They have to invent catastrophes
Re: (Score:2)
ah yes, DARPA funded the Internet, so of course they'll be funding the Singularity.
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner or later some evil person is going to figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human being into a "supersoldier," in a way that will compromise the long term health or well being of he human being.
Then everybody else is going to do the same awful thing, just to compete. Because they 'have to.'
They don't need technlogy for that. Being trained to kill and then being put in situations where violence is demanded is harmful to the long term health of humans.
Simple (Score:5, Funny)
Broadcast routines through The View - then you'll get millions of brains connected.
Oh wait, higher brain functions. I guess that demographic won't work then.
Re: (Score:1)
It has become pretty obvious that doing anything to help out DARPA is just going to be used against all of us, one way or another.
I can't believe people are still willing to participate in this stuff.
This.
Knowing what we know now, anyone who assists DARPA or any TLA is actively working against their own people, and should be regarded as a traitorous persona non grata.
Re: (Score:1)
It has become pretty obvious that doing anything to help out DARPA is just going to be used against all of us, one way or another.
I can't believe people are still willing to participate in this stuff.
This.
Knowing what we know now, anyone who assists DARPA or any TLA is actively working against their own people, and should be regarded as a traitorous persona non grata.
Indeed I can't believe all the people who are still willing to participate in DARPA programs like, say, the Internet. Give them their tubes back already!
Re: (Score:2)
The internet has not been a DARPA project for at least 20 years, nor is today's government the same as the pasts.
Try to keep up.
Re:Screw DARPA ... (Score:4, Insightful)
nor is today's government the same as the pasts
No, it's arguably less corrupt and violent than the governments that funded the early development of DARPA and the Internet. It's unquestionably building fewer weapons of mass destruction, anyway. I realize most of the people posting here weren't even born when the Vietnam war or the Cuban missile crisis or the Nixon administration were happening, but could you try reading some history occasionally?
The main issue, as far as I can see, is that technological advances have made certain types of malfeasance more accessible to those in power. Thus we have vastly more targeted assassinations (drone strikes) and surveillance (NSA) than we did in, say, 1970. On the other hand, in 1970 we were bombing Vietnam (and Cambodia) on a scale vastly more destructive than anything we've done to Iraq or Afghanistan, and Hoover was still in charge of the FBI. I realize that using this as a reference point for evaluating our current government is grading on a curve, but I fail to see how aiding DARPA in 2013 is any worse than aiding it in the development of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, young'uns ought to wait 'til they're growed to use psycho-active shit. That's a no-brainer, but it takes some raising to make it happen.
Dude makes a point or three; if you don't agree, argue on point and merits.
Whether you agree or don't, whether he's right or wrong, there's one good take-away: read. Especially read history. If you don't know where we've been (we: us humans) it's more difficult to get a good picture of where and why we are where we are; if you don't know where we've been
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry buy DARPA pioneers too much cool shit for me to care.
Re: (Score:3)
It has become pretty obvious that doing anything to help out DARPA is just going to be used against all of us, one way or another.
Yeah, it really sucks how the Internet has made commerce easier, information more accessible, and governments more transparent. Damn you, DARPA!
Re: (Score:1)
You mean cyber-brains? Almost everyone in Ghost in the Shell has an artificial brain implant.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt there is much in the way of "motor commands" involved in data filtering. There would be motor commands involved in autonomous robots (DARPA Grand Challenge [wikipedia.org]) especially when paired with image recognition and route selection.
Not everything is about the NSA.
Re: (Score:1)
Well of-course they want to use that to spy on you
That is American conservatism, such as what is currently running the country.
They want to know your every thought, not only what you say on the phone or type, but what do you think, what do you feel about things.
That is soviet style fascism, the product of conservatism run amok.
Not only do they want to know what you think, they want to force you to think what they want you to think and nothing else.
That is the product of unrestrained religious fascism. Only one political movement that gets much attention in the US attempts to go in that direction, and you are a member of that movement. Only a cult-like movement with a god-like leader would even dare pursue such a goal.
Only the Church of Ron Paul (TM) so blatantly wishes to deliver more power for the powe
Pink Floyd (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been.
You've been in the pipeline, filling in time,
provided with toys and Scouting for Boys.
You bought a guitar to punish your ma,
And you didn't like school, and you know you're nobody's fool,
So welcome to the machine.
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream? It's alright we told you what to dream.
You dreamed of a big star, he played a mean guitar,
He always ate in the Steak Bar. He loved to drive in his Jaguar.
So welcome to the machine.
Re: (Score:3)
How much are they willing to spend this time around? A cool 5million?
I reckon you'd need at least six million.
Obligatory Conspiracy Theory... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, of course. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Obligatory Conspiracy Theory... (Score:5, Funny)
killing machines ... that can model human thought
So, robots with Facebook pages and Twitter feeds?
MechWarrior5324 +1 Likes Acme Diodes
@R2D222222 P0wnd 11 civs after recharge best day EVER! #acidforblood #winning
Re: (Score:3)
What possible good can come from a war-oriented defense projects agency trying to create redundant communications systems to make nuclear war less catastrophic and thus more appealing?
Re: (Score:2)
Less casualties on both sides. The Terminator corps can take risks the Marine corps couldn't, so they don't have to, say, shoot a suspected suicide bomber from a distance rather than close in and investigate. Sure, one might get blown up, but so what? By the time the shrapnel hits the ground ten more have popped out from the assembly line.
Expendable unfeeling industrially man
Re: (Score:1)
Higher brain function? (Score:2)
So they want to build computers like the one of Bomb #20 from Dark Star?
I... (Score:1)
... want a pony.
Preferably one that bestows super-powers when stroked.
Re: (Score:2)
They want strong AI (Score:2)
Understandable, but as there is not even a credible theory at this time, expect that strong AI is at the very least 50 years into the future, probably much, much longer. It also seems they have zero clue about the state-of-the-art. Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you think we'll get there?
DARPA is one of the coolest federal agencies. They take risks to try game-changing reimaginings that leap forward in the state-of-the-art. When they work. Which they often don't. But often even the failures are cool.
Re: (Score:2)
As for not knowing the state of the art, were you aware that, for example, a so-called deep-learning algorithm recently achieved super-human performance in recognizing road signs [idsia.ch], despite being a rather general algorithm [idsia.ch]? Super-human, as in, it had a lower recognizing road signs than people did. It's stunning. And surprisingly, the algorithm(s) doing this are among those that could be most credibly
Re: (Score:2)
... and has nothing at all to do with AI. Keep kidding yourself. And, yes, "strung AI", "true AI", etc. are only used because people with no clue what AI is keep calling things AI that are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Name the benchmark, then we can argue whether any progress has been achieved on that benchmark in the last 40 years, or 5 years.
From the article, here is what DARPA is asking for:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, not difficult at all, just impossible. By the very definition, you need zero effort to build it as any effort would result in the same, namely nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
So what role did porn have in the development of ICBMs?
Re: (Score:2)
So what role did porn have in the development of ICBMs?
Engendered feelings of inadequacy. Have you seen the size of ICBMs?
Re: (Score:2)
We know enough about the brain for doing this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Given the unusual specificity of the desired technological approach the DARPA project appears to be a request for proposals whose grantee has already been determined in secret.
The article in "network world" also claims that it's DARPA scientists doing it---no, DARPA pays money to scientists.
http://www.alexandria.nu/ai/blog/entry.asp?E=41
There's no royal road to AI, and it's very unlikely there is any "one" magic approach or algorithm is critical. Natural intelligence is likely the confluence of
Neurons on a circuit (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The Desert of the Real (Score:1)
Virus? (Score:1)
Let's try the other direction (Score:2)
It comes down to using the right tool for the job, at least in the future we see happening this century. Why not make a computer that can attach to a human brain? Human brains are great at solving some problems, and terrible at solving others. We should try to improve the interface between the two.
It would be really nice to have a coprocessor that can handle discrete problems that can help out with the things that humans are really bad at. My computer chip could help out with calculating some numbers wh
misleading title... again... (Score:1)
I want.... (Score:1)
I want military^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdefense employees that fuse with higher human brain function.
I am Locutus of Borg (Score:1)
Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
War With Machines (Score:2)
Good news, everyone! (Score:2)
"Everyone was in favor of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it in the body of a great white shark. Ohh, suddenly you go too far!"