Apple Wants People To Control Devices With Their Thoughts (wsj.com) 42
Apple is embracing the world of brain computer interfaces, unveiling a new technology that one day could revolutionize how humans interact with their devices. From a report: The company is taking early steps to enable people to control their iPhones with neural signals captured by a new generation of brain implants. It could make Apple devices more accessible to tens of thousands of people who can't use their hands because of severe spinal cord injuries or diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.
[...] Historically, humans interacted with their computers mechanically, using keyboards and mice. Smartphones introduced touch, a behavioral input, but still an observable physical movement. The new capability means Apple devices won't need to see the user make specific movements, the devices can detect user intentions from decoded brain signals. Apple has worked on the new standard with Synchron, which makes a stent-like device that is implanted in a vein atop the brain's motor cortex. The device called the Stentrode has electrodes that read brain signals. It translates the signals into selecting icons on a screen.
[...] Historically, humans interacted with their computers mechanically, using keyboards and mice. Smartphones introduced touch, a behavioral input, but still an observable physical movement. The new capability means Apple devices won't need to see the user make specific movements, the devices can detect user intentions from decoded brain signals. Apple has worked on the new standard with Synchron, which makes a stent-like device that is implanted in a vein atop the brain's motor cortex. The device called the Stentrode has electrodes that read brain signals. It translates the signals into selecting icons on a screen.
Misread (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple wants to control peoples thoughts with their devices
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No you didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what the treshold will be for Apple to report inappropriate thoughts to the authorities. I hope it can be turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what the treshold will be for Apple to report inappropriate thoughts to the authorities. I hope it can be turned off.
When a person's thoughts lead to a loss of revenue...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My first thought was "Apple fans don't have any thoughts. They're mindless sheep.
That's probably unfair. Probably.
Re: (Score:2)
Not too far from it. Every Apple user I've asked in tech calls thinks PC's and Andriod is too complicated. Apple thinks two buttons on a mouse are too complicated for it's users, so yeah not far from the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Misread (Score:2)
Mee to. And then, aren't they already?
apple thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"You're thinking it wrong."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well played, but I think they both work.
Careful what you think about.. (Score:3)
What am I thinking now, Apple? (Score:2)
Only two characters are needed to describe it.
Soo, Apple wants data on what people think? (Score:2)
Yep, makes sense. Another evil corp. to stay away from.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing Apple, what they really want is for some other big tech company to develop a thought controlled device first.
Then Apple can copy their design, make some small ease of use enhancements, add some rounded curves, slap an Apple logo on the back, and then charge twice as much for it. It's the Apple Way!
Well then (Score:2)
Dawn of the Cybermen (Score:3)
Honestly, Apple or anything Elon Musk is involved with should be avoided when it comes to the idea of a brain implant.
Re: (Score:2)
None of our current societies support it being acceptable to have someone else know what you're thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
None of our current societies support it being acceptable to have someone else know what you're thinking.
But modern technological societies already have fairly strong - and growing - acceptability of random people knowing what we're doing. All those Facebook, Google, Windows, and other users seem not to care much that their movements, activities, and interests are being routinely monitored.
How big a step is it to bridge that final gap to the place where people also assent to having their thoughts read in exchange for some shiny bauble? Maybe not that big. As long as people aren't slapped in the face with evide
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dawn of the Cybermen (Score:2)
Language (Score:2)
None of our current societies support it being acceptable to have someone else know what you're thinking.
They all support it - the reason we developed language is to communicate our thoughts to each other. It may be imperfect but the great advantage is that we can choose which thoughts to communicate and which not.
Re: Language (Score:2)
Hahaha no. We developed language to give imperatives.
Re: Dawn of the Cybermen (Score:3)
Why do people on slashdot always get their knickers in a bunch whenever the topic of BCI comes up?
Maybe it's just the idea of losing control of all four limbs being my biggest phobia above all else, but I don't care who is researching it, as long as somebody is. I can't imagine being in that position, and I'm honestly aghast when I see the likes of narcc, rsilvergun, amimojo, and drinkypoo get some kind of twisted satisfaction when they hear about any kind of setback, like for example the first neuralink pa
I want a Lamborghini (Score:2)
it's and old, nay, ancient code, (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory– (Score:2)
Eyephone installation in 3, 2
Re: (Score:2)
Retina display.
Narrow use case (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm certainly in favor of safe technologies that can assist people with neurological/mobility handicaps. But really, that's what this primarily addresses.
What is happening with subvocalization technology? That seems like much more central to the major use case for human-computer interface. I don't need my mouse to work like a third hand. I have two hands for that already. What I need is for my intended verbalization to be detected by my computer. Without having to speak out loud around other people.
Sure it's conceivable that direct neural interface can some day become capable of "reading" my verbal thoughts. But my understanding of current subvocalization technology is that it doesn't need to be nearly so intrusive. Apparently even when we don't intend to speak out loud, out brain still generates nerve impulses similar to actual speech, and those can be detected externally. They just need to be decoded - which is exactly the kind of thing various AI/ML techniques excel at.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ChatGPT tells me what I'm referring to is the distinction between SSI (Silent Speech Interface) vs BCI (Brain-Computer Interface). There's significant research along both lines. But my preference is strongly toward SSI technologies, primarily because it's less invasive, and more nearly aligned with the limited desirable use.
SSI still has similar privacy concerns about the potential to invade private/internal thought. Again my preference is to keep the interface external so it's easy to turn it off or comp
Want / don't want (Score:2)
Would I love a neural interface? Yes. Especially if it's bidirectional.
Do I trust any of the companies that might build one with access to my brain? I do not.
oblig: In Soviet Russia ... (Score:3, Informative)
iPhone controlls YOU!
Re: (Score:3)
In 2030 USA iPhone controls YOU.
The Walled Garden IS you! (Score:2)
thoughts.. (Score:2)
80085
LTS? (Score:2)
So, how long are they offering long-term support for the implants and the devices? Lifetime of the user?
I am instantly reminded of a story here months ago, someone with an artificial something - a leg? a hip? and a part broke/wore out, and the company said, "it's ten years old, and obsolete, we don't support it".
Bullshit (Score:1)