How much longer until mind-reading technology is fully developed

>>8627309
That webm is misleading btw. The way those results are generated is analogously like having Picasso paint a basket of fruit from a real-life model and then having a third party attempt to draw that model based off of the Picasso painting.

File: last-week-tonight-01_612x381.jpg (118KB, 612x380px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 612x380px

>>8627309

>Implying it isn't already

What the fuck are those words on the screen when the elephant walks by?

>>8627309
>>8627351
I'd say non-conventionally, yes, mind-reading is already a thing. Smartphones are literally fucking telescreens, there's no grand conspiracy regarding that.

But literal mind-reading? Nah, I don't think so. Not yet at least.

>>8627309
When we make invasive neural interfaces that don't actually suck and are safe

>>8627480
expand on this

File: reads_minds.jpg (61KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x450px

>>8627309

We already have mind reading tech, it just isn't that exciting yet.

>>8627309

What would you want to do with the mind reading tech?

>>8627568
Read minds?

File: Adult_Caenorhabditis_elegans.jpg (42KB, 1920x632px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1920x632px

This is C. Elegans. It has 300-some neurons, and the wiring of all of them has been established since 1986 (IIRC all the connections are hard-coded into the little guy--all of them are the same in each one). We have no fucking idea what it is thinking. People have been staring at this faggot's nervous system since before most of /sci/ was born AND WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT ANY OF IT. By the time we can understand what a nematode is thinking we'll be less than one billionth of the way to properly wrestling with something as convoluted as the human brain.

>>8627637
If we know the wiring and the inputs/outputs then why can't we simulate one?

>>8627637
Human beings possess the innate ability to interpret/infer what others are thinking though. That could factor into the research whereas with nematodes it's a lot more complicated.

>>8627642
People have done this actually

http://www.openworm.org/

>>8627309
50 years

>>8627637
only because you cant get empathic with that worm that doesnt mean someone else couldnt

>>8627558
The approach above uses a huge MRI machine and it sucks. It is unlikely to improve.

Direct neural interfaces could work a hell of a lot better, but there are issues with making them last and not killing brain tissue.

There's also the whole, how are we going to do 'cosmetic' brain surgery on a large scale issue

A lot of human minds can read minds naturally.

>>8627619

Sure, but why? What kind of information would you hope to get? How would you use that information?

Are you hoping for tech that can secretly read minds? Or openly read minds?

Details plz.

>>8627637
>We have no fucking idea what it is thinking.

I like your example, but I think that is a little bit of a hyperbole.

>>8628868
Why do you think Internet surveillance is a big thing?

Mind-reading would pretty much be that but minus the middleman.

null

>>8627309
Probably not until someone learns to read the neural net and programs it into a computer, which likely has a fuzzy memory as we do so that it can relate. That'd be one fancy machine reading the infinitely compact memory paths. Or whatever is presented in the physical world.

>>8627660
Human beings possess the ability to sometimes interpret what others are thinking through series of trials throughout their life of trying to interpret what others are thinking.

bout tree fiddy years

>>8628953

Oh, so, people hope mind reading technology can exist so that they can take advantage of other people?

I suppose then the trick is to get mind reading technology before other people get mind reading technology.

Otherwise, there is no advantage to be had.

I feel like that desire is a little boring since it's basically what 99.99% of people pursue all of their life: money, power, being better than someone else, pushing other people down to feel better about themselves, etc.

Predictable.

>>8632750
Cry about it.

File: superior.jpg (10KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 224x225px

>>8632755

Predictable.

>>8632750
what's really predictable is you being a fag

>>8632788
bullshit

I dare anyone to predict my next post

>>8627309

I'm going to give you tips to predict human behavior, but it requires time and observation of specific individuals, you won't be able to generalize it, AKA you'll have to do the "process" again and again for each person.

1) If you do, stop thinking people lie unless you have objective evidence to argument it (AKA you SAW someone doing something they said they wouldn't). Otherwise, believe what people say and do, and do not assume why people do it, just observe and be objective (i'll explain in a moment why this is important)
2) Generalize the next "concepts" as if they were REALLY similar or the same: Idea, belief, value, thought, feeling (maybe), and other similar concepts.
3) Pay attention to what the person you're interested in says in relation to how he or she perceives the world (reality) and values it, for example, what he/she considers bad or good, basically their morality. The more "morality" you understand of the person and "ideas" or "values" the broader your results will be.
4) OBSERVE THEM objectively, this is SUPER HELPFUL, observe them in different situations, in different moments, basically pay attention to what they do when you interact with them and in other ocassions when you can just watch them, how they react, how they respond to whatever, that's what you want to know

When you gather a lot of information about this, you will be able to predict a person behavior, even their ideas, when something happens, because you'll be aware of how they react behaviorally and morally to the situations you analyzed (that's why the more you observe, the better you'll be to predict them)

I'm a psychologist in the process of getting a master lol, what i just told you are some of the condensed principals psychologists use to understand and predict human behavior. So use it wisely. Studying psychology will actually help you to do so, but you need good psychology, like Cognitive-behaviorism, or radical behaviorism, anything else other than that is BS.

>>8632968
This is basically home-made mind-reading... it takes time, but it's actually effective.
I've done this "naturally" through my years in psychology, having actual theory helps even more, but the results are pretty cool, i literally know how most of the people i live around will react to almost everything, i even got to know myself better.

>>8632970
teach me more

>>8627309
>right side has logos and shit all over it

>>8627365
It is an artist's conception video. Basically, this is all faked. This isn't even science and has no proper oversight.

>>8632968
>>8632970
What does this have to do with actually reading the mind though?

>>8627309
I can speak from experience that what you see on the right is exactly what you see when you take far too much LSD. I'm not even kidding.

>>8627309

What is the source for this clip? is there a citation?

>>8627309
That looks a lot like deep dream images/videos.

>>8627637
>We have no fucking idea what it is thinking
I don't think it "thinks"

File: mricns1.png (2MB, 1680x1705px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1680x1705px

>>8627309
Not any time soon. The classifier relies on BOLD signas, i.e. a person needs to physically be inside of an MRI scanner to even be able to train the classifier, and subsequently test it. Also not unimportantly, you need the participants' cooperation to train the classifier.

>>8633280
pic related, bottom right panel

>>8633184
>It is an artist's conception video. Basically, this is all faked. This isn't even science and has no proper oversight.
That's not actually correct. The logos and other things that are not actually present in the true data are the result of the training set of stimulus material. Basically a classifier is trained on brain imaging data and the corresponding stimulus material. It's then tested on new brain imaging data without it having access to the new stimulus material. So inaccuracies like those logos is where the classifier thought that the participant was looking at logos, when in fact they weren't. This is real data, so not an artist's conception.

>>8627672
What difference do you think it makes that the real brain is continuous but the simulation necessarily has to be discrete?

The higher the frame rate, does the realism converge on e or some shit?

This year, actually

>https://youtu.be/BP_b4yzxp80

Inb4

>TEDx

I know, but the science seems legit, and that old woman worked at MIT, google and oculus so she's probably not a scammer.This is the startups website

http://www.opnwatr.io/technology

>>8633327
The logo mention was a joke. The rest isn't.

No, it isn't real data. That isn't how it works. Read the paper yourself.

File: IMG_1352.png (717KB, 1000x581px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 1000x581px

>implying it's not already here

Honestly, if your inner monologue was being read, how would you feel?

>>8633569
Quick rundown on this guy?

>the grand Budapest hotel
n0ice

>>8627321
exactly, how is it misleading?

>>8634501
In the sense that he doesn't understand how it works

>>8633782
Same. Been seeing him and the other one all over 4chan and the news and haven't gotten a clear impression of who they are