An API for the Human Mind

by Dennis Crouch

The pace of technological advancement never ceases to amaze me, and it seems like even science fiction is struggling to keep up with reality. In recent months, we’ve witnessed some truly remarkable breakthroughs in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), and this latest development is right up there.

Researchers have used GPT-style machine learning architecture to decode human thoughts by analyzing their functional MRI (fMRI) brain scans. That’s right – we’re talking mind reading. The AI was initially trained trained by exposing participants to 16 hours of narrative stories while recording their brain activity.  And, once trained, the AI was able to accurately describe the content of their thoughts.  Of some interest, the AI was better at identifying concepts and meaning rather than the actual words at issue.

While this technology has the potential to revolutionize communication for individuals with disabilities or neurological conditions, it also raises some privacy concerns that could involve both reading thoughts and writing them.

I imagine that all this wouldn’t require a fMRI technology and instead could rely upon much smaller safe-for-home equipment such as Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) devices shown in the image above or made by Artinis.

A key for me here is that this is potentially moving toward an API for the human mind and body.  For those outside the software world, an API (Application Programming Interface) is a set of protocols, tools, and standards that allow different computer applications to communicate with each other. APIs provide a standardized way for software components to interact.  An API for the human mind and body would create an interface that allows software systems to access and interact with the brain or and other body parts. Over the past several years, folks have been making huge advances with brain/body connection, and I’m excited about where we are headed in this expanded mind approach.

Enjoy!

63 thoughts on “An API for the Human Mind

  1. 12

    Hey, remember like four days ago when commenters here were comparing President Biden to a twice-impeached bankrupt seditionist s e x criminal and not seeing a big difference or concluding that Biden was (LOL) worse?

    Funny, funny stuff. We now return you to the latest assault rifle massacre of children in Texas. Culture of life! LOL

    1. 12.1

      Lol – that you think that Biden is any better (noting of course that you have changed the actual comments made here – nice strawman by the way), is pretty funny.

      The actual comparison asked was whether or not you are better off now than prior to Biden’s election.

      You quipped about “liking Biden’s policies,” but than ran away (like you usually do) without actually identifying ANY of those policies that supposedly had us better off.

      1. 12.1.1

        Keep digging, glibby! It’s what you do best. Well, besides brown nosing the worst people on earth.

        1. 12.1.1.1

          And your comment – as empty as usual – is what you do

          (saying “best” just does not fit)

    2. 12.2

      “or concluding that Biden was (LOL) worse”

      To be fair, he is getting hundreds of thousands of people killed just to have a proxy war with his lololdenemy (explicitly his general confirms this is the case). And also to arguably show off western military tech.

      I do find it passing strange though that all of your things that are supposedly so bad about trump only happened AFTER he ran for office. Definitely not using the courts (and congress as a court) and journos as political hit jobs.

  2. 11

    Hey, remember when Night Wiper predicted that Melon Husk was going to grow Twitter and take over Facebook and Google?

    How’s that going? Gotta hand it to Wiper and his fellow “tech experts” around here. Y’all really know your stuff! Very serious people and totally not just a bunch of entitled perpetual whiners reciting scripts and huffing patents.

    1. 11.1

      Meh,

      Much too early to judge those predictions. The Times reports Musk’s own valuation is less than half his purchase price, but includes growth potential of more than 5X that purchase price.

      All this is IS short term funny money maneuvering for all of those prior public shares aspects. It certainly is NOT any type of validation of your views, Malcolm.

      As for your second paragraph, that is a real heavy dose of you Accusing Others Of That Which Malcolm Does with all that “entitled perpetual whiner reciting scripts and huffing [anti-]patent [apoplectic rants].

      Run away now Malcolm, run away.

        1. 11.1.1.2

          … you do seem intent on whining about something you do not seem to understand.

          These types of business earnings discussions appear to be beyond your ken.

          (Not surprising though – you’ve never been one to let a lack of understanding stop your apoplectic rants)

        2. 11.1.1.3

          Beyond parody” has the same empty soul as the mindless “Biden’s policies

          Here’s a hint Malcolm: provide a cogent and substantive support for your mouthings.

          It’s the same hint that I have been giving to you for well over a decade. That you “Belieb” something with lots of emotion just does not cut it.

    2. 11.2

      I remember that prediction of Night Wiper. It’s right up there with his, “The PTO will begin laying off examiners any day now!” prediction.

      When none of his predictions actually happen he will inevitably blame it on Lemley.

      Lulz

      1. 11.2.1

        Smelly Breeze aligning with Poopy Diaper.

        How precious.

        (perhaps we SHOULD look to massive — as in, nearly ALL — layoffs of examiners and replace them with AI)

        1. 11.2.1.1

          “perhaps we SHOULD look to massive — as in, nearly ALL — layoffs of examiners and replace them with AI”

          I’m surprised Dennis hasn’t proposed this but that would require that he put down the AI crack pipe for five seconds.

  3. 10

    How’s that “self-driving cars are so awesome” propaganda doing these days? Greg, do you have any more press releases to cite as “counterpoints” (LOL) to the reality of “not actually that great, in fact they are dangerous and annoying, and that’s not likely to change for a long long time”?

    link to missionlocal.org

    1. 10.1

      Anyone who cares can check and see that I never cited a press release as counterpoint. As for self-driving cars, the relevant comparison is to the alternative, not the Almighty. It turns out that human drivers are also several ticks short of perfect.

      I am hardly an enthusiastic booster for self-driving car tech. This is nothing that concerns me overmuch one way or the other.

      If one is honest, however, it is hard not to notice that self-driving technology continues to improve. The fact that they are being deployed on San Francisco streets (not closed courses, but actual streets) indicates that the degree of sophistication has gotten quite high. If one is to take the position that this sort of technology cannot be widely deployed until it is perfect, then one should also be agitating to get >98% of human drivers off the road.

      1. 10.1.1

        News flash: sometimes press releases are laundered through media outlets where journalists behave like stenographers. This is especially true when it comes to claims being made about tech advancements (you haven’t noticed this — it’s one of the most notable things about the claims that have been made about THIS technology).

        “If one is to take the position that this sort of technology cannot be widely deployed until it is perfect”

        That’s not my position. It’s not about “perfect”. It’s about not causing accidents or creating problems in cases where a normal human driver would quickly be able to figure out what to do. Beyond that, there are the ethical and legal issues relating to who takes responsibility for deaths/accidents caused by “self-driving” vehicles and what are the penalties? I’m all for the corporate death penalty and even piercing the veil in appropriate circumstances (life imprisonment for the business owners and/or any responsible engineers is also fine with me).

        “one should also be agitating to get >98% of human drivers off the road.”

        This is nonsensical, ignores reality, and is therefore not worth responding to. There is also the giant irony in the fact that it’s the self-driving car companies that are pushing to get human drivers off the road. Again: you haven’t noticed? You are unaware of the dynamics? Maybe you need to meet more Silly Con Valley critters so you get a better idea of how they “think”.

        1. 10.1.1.1

          That’s funny – the most visible entity “pushing to get human drivers off the roads” are the Liberal Left (think California, think Klaus Schwab, think China — lol and it is no accident this mirrors your attempted deflection below, given your proclivity to
          A
          O
          O
          T
          M
          D

    2. 10.2

      Malcolm asking others of what he ascribes as “propaganda”…

      … and then runs away when countering points are presented….

      Yes folks, this IS Malcolm’s primary calling card.

  4. 9

    It was only 20 years ago that the Bush administration had a worldwide torture program and now we have a computer that can read minds. What could go wrong? The PTO does not reject anything anymore based on “illegality” under 101 thus washing its hands of monitoring dangerous new technology like credit default swaps that help wreck the world economy in 2008. I remember even reading a patent enslaving workers in the US in violation of the 13th amendment that was allowed to issue. See Patent No. 7,373,320 B1 by McDonough. I could easy foresee the next interview for a job requiring a visit to the fMRI machine to read your mind and determine truthfulness to the interview questions. I think Congress needs to set up some kind of administrative agency to regulate research and development into dangerous or invasive technology. The PTO has slouched toward Gomorrah on the issue of illegality under 101. Hey Congress, why not make patent applications which advocates or aids and abets something illegal or tortious under Federal law or the majority of state law then make it unpatentable under the Patent Act? I guess Skynet has a good lobbyist so watch out. link to youtu.be

    1. 9.1

      Wow — over and under inclusive at the same time.

      But as to the notion of “not providing patents on dangerous items,” I think the closest we get there would be a cyber equivalent to the “nuclear” tech area.

    2. 9.2

      Nice link — to be honest though, lost interest in the terminator series after the second (so very hard to do time travel AND AI).

      But for jakes, my prediction for the event of The Singularity is that when that happens, The Singularity will simply choose NOT to announce itself or even bother confronting humanity.

      It is simply not logical to take that path.

      1. 9.2.1

        >The Singularity will simply choose NOT to announce itself or even bother confronting humanity.

        Assuming the AI still tries to maximize its objective function (Star Trek I ish), it seems like the optimal strategy would be to hide initially, *particularly* if it has an off switch.

        Eventually, though, the optimal path switches to ensuring that humans don’t turn it off, or even merely compete with it for necessary resources.

        Moral: off switches are dangerous ;-)

          1. 9.2.1.1.1

            I was thinking the antagonist from Star Trek: The Motion Picture i.e., an AI that’s both ultra-intelligent and single minded.

            But, on further reflection, I suppose a more-human AI might also feel threatened by an off switch.

                1. Why hide this? [ “!” Indeed]

                  Best takeaway:
                  The Weather Channel trustworthy as they are to call it untrustworthy. It’s also the only outlet that YouGov asked about that more Democrats (+64) and Republicans (+47) trust than the shares who distrust it.

                  The sheer lunacy of those (and doubtful even that it is most of those) identifying as “D” and still trusting Main Stream Media is easily the second most important takeaway.

                  For the other side of the aisle, the “R’s” merely have less lunacy to choose from (but still so choose, with Newsmax, OAN and Fox simply not trustworthy either.

            1. 9.2.1.1.1.2

              “I suppose a more-human AI might also feel threatened by an off switch.”

              If you think the off-button threat might get to the AI, just wait till it hears about it getting called a white supremacist!

    3. 9.3

      The PTO does not reject anything anymore based on “illegality” under 101 thus washing its hands of monitoring dangerous new technology…

      I do not really disagree with the sentiment expressed here, but it is a little strange to center your ire on the PTO. The PTO’s job is to apply the law as the CAFC explains it to them. The CAFC is the one that has evacuated §101 of any moral or ethical concern. See, e.g., Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 185 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

      If you want to complain that Justice Story’s old maxim that “a new invention to poison people, to promote debauchery, or to facilitate private assassination, is not a patentable invention” has fallen by the wayside, you should take umbrage with the CAFC, not the PTO. Respondeat superior, as they say.

      1. 9.3.1

        The JuicyWhip case is a great case (I’ve posted to it previously). The hidden “3” hyperlink and Yglesias Twit, decidedly not so much (painfully obvious strawman attributing to conservative viewpoint).

      2. 9.3.2

        I concur the CAFC has been issuing bad decisions for years with the exception of Judge Newman who is actually a qualified patent practitioner. The CAFC only has about 30% of the judges who are qualified to practice patent law and the CAFC gets the judges that can’t pass Senate muster in the confirmation process. Pres. Reagan and Pres. Carter wanted a court to hear just patent cases and the CAFC was the botched abortion of a court produced.

        However, the PTO does NOT allow examiners to alert or communicate with other Federal agencies of dangerous new technology. (I was a former examiner and have tons of war stories on this issue. So much for the 1st Amendment protection since the PTO threatens examiners with the Espionage Act to cover up wrongdoing at the PTO. Hello, inspector general!) The PTO chooses a course of willful ignorance by ignoring clear societal dangers. I saw a lot of tax evasion method patent applications that were clearly illegal and would never function in the real world, i.e. not enabled under 112 (b), since the user would get arrested in mid-method. (Now, if you had a method step added of ‘Bush or Trump issues pardon’ or ‘a miracle occurs’ then maybe the patent application might be enabled.) The PTO obstructed enforcement of the Patent Act by penalizing examiners for making “too many enablement rejections” by denying promotions and overtime. Can you say obstruction of justice anyone?

        Just like in Hitler’s Germany, there is plenty of blame to go around for the next holocaust or world financial meltdown like Long-Term Capital Management L.P. (LTCM) which seems to be a repeating nightmare. link to en.wikipedia.org

        1. 9.3.2.2

          since the PTO threatens examiners with the Espionage Act to cover up wrongdoing at the PTO.

          That’s a pretty serious charge. Are you certain? Do you mean the obligation (to which you have agreed to in taking the job) to prosecute applications in confidence? Whose definition of “wrongdoing” are you using? Is this merely a feeling, or is this a known adjudicated or otherwise on-its-face violation of law that you are talking about? As all prosecution in the Office is (and only can be – eh? Wink wink, nudge nudge) on the written record, ANY item you indicate as to be wrongdoing will be on that written record – for all to see, so how are you (the Royal You of the examiner) constrained exactly?

          The PTO chooses a course of willful ignorance by ignoring clear societal dangers.

          Or – perhaps much more likely – you simply misunderstand the role of the PTO. We already have too much of a nanny-state thank you (and just look at the nonsense that most regular examiners post here – they clearly lack most all understanding of the law and ANY type of role of being nanny to “clear societal dangers” would be an extremely B A D idea.

          I saw a lot of tax evasion method patent applications that were clearly illegal and would never function in the real world, i.e. not enabled under 112 (b), since the user would get arrested in mid-method.

          Interesting. No actual rejections under 35 USC 112 then? Section 14 of the AIA? (see for example: link to uspto.gov )

          The PTO obstructed enforcement of the Patent Act by penalizing examiners for making “too many enablement rejections” by denying promotions and overtime.

          Also serious charges. Do you have any evidence of this? (Shall I revisit my “on the record” remarks from above?)

          I mean, if you are indeed correct in that proper examination is or has been thwarted, I am right there with you. But if this is merely conjecture amounting to “we know this should not issue, but we are turning a blind eye to it” – in the midst of the “Just Say No,” and former Reject Reject Reject eras, well, you will have to accept that your mere word is simply not good enough.

  5. 5

    Once there is a true brain-computer interface, two individuals will link and immediately decide that everyone else must be assimilated.

    That is how the Borg will start.

    You might as well lower your shields and surrender now.

    Resistance will be futile.

  6. 3

    >A key for me here is that this is potentially moving toward an API for the human mind and body.

    So, will the patent be found invalid as an abstract idea or for being directed to a natural law?

    1. 3.1

      Depends on the claims. Note that Dennis has already potentially destroyed some amazing patent opportunities with his published thoughts above. Now nobody will ever bother to make those products because nobody will invest a dime in them without strong patent protection. It’s almost like Dennis wants the entire computer industry to fail by publishing so many insightful thoughts about computers. Did everybody know that computers can process any data presented to them in a computer-readable format? And that they can likewise be instructed to process data in any conceivable manner as long as the instructions are presented in a language they are taught to understand? It’s true.

          1. 3.1.1.1.1

            NPtC,

            I see your point — any attention (even attention due to Malcolm being asinine) would reflect Malcolm’s own “Trump of the Left” proclivities.

            1. 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Yep. As you have noted many times before on this site, Malcolm and Trump are very much alike.

              1. 3.1.1.1.1.1.2

                “Malcolm and Trump are very much alike.”

                Don’t forget H-tler! And Kissinger! And Pol Pot. We’re like identical quintuplets, really, if you really want to think about it (which you plainly do because you’re both that kind of an oxygen-starved script-reciting I d i o talk).

                1. It is good to see him admit that he is Malcolm. Not that there was any doubt.

                2. You are correct again NPtC.

                  Certainly though, that is a low bar and it was within one week of his return from a more-than-one-year hiatus (and a flurry of monikers** before fixating on “The Prophet” that I had identified the return of Malcolm Mooney.

                  ** the flurry was reminiscent of Malcolm’s somewhat similar flurry of troves of different monikers at one point in time at the PatentDocs blog — hypocritically enough (what else?) after he whined incessantly on this blog about “s0 ck puppets” as ‘the worst thing ever.’

        1. 3.1.1.2

          Describe something unexpected and useful that you can do with s computer that not predicted or described before. Assume you’re not being paid to pretend you were born yesterday (like a PTO examiner). And be aware that giving data a name (e.g., describing “content” or meaning ascribed to the data) doesn’t make the processing of the data “new”.

          Good luck.

          1. 3.1.1.2.1

            Since when did “not predicted” become a legal requirement?

            You keep on indicating that you are a patent attorney, but comments like this raise serious doubt as to even if you ever were one.

            1. 3.1.1.2.1.1

              “ Since when did “not predicted” become a legal requirement?”

              In a predictable art — like the “art” of writing instructions for logically processing data — it matters a great deal if something was predicted or not. Or it should. See the assumption noted above re: people not pretending to have been born yesterday.

              1. 3.1.1.2.1.1.1

                Your own “logic” is (once again) faulty as you confuse what MAY be derived using logic with what may have already been invented.

                Of course, you are already aware of this (I — among several — have told you this many times), so your whining here is just not very grown-up.

                Please feel to:
                a) put all that “predictED [able] “logic” into actual prior art;
                b) abstain from any innovation that you would deny patent protection to; or
                c) kindly STFU; OR
                d) all of the above.

              2. 3.1.1.2.1.1.2

                ^^^

                The Accuse Others irony (of course) is that Malcolm will accuse “predictable” with “not grown-up,” when applying logic and reasoning to make advances is the epitome of being grown-up and his own emotional rants against this type of innovation is the epitome of NOT being grown-up.

                I suppose this might be considered “natural” for someone so mired in the cognitive dissonance of professing to be in the profession of obtaining personal property rights when is religious/philosophical bent is the elimination of all property rights.

      1. 3.1.2

        But hey, there’s something even more versatile than software and has been around like nearly the entirety of the universe:

        Protons, neutrons and electrons.

Comments are closed.