Facebook is Making a Bracelet That Lets You Control Computers With Your Brain (technologyreview.com) 51
Facebook says it has created a wristband that translates motor signals from your brain so you can move a digital object just by thinking about it. From a report: The wristband, which looks like a clunky iPod on a strap, uses sensors to detect movements you intend to make. It uses electromyography (EMG) to interpret electrical activity from motor nerves as they send information from the brain to the hand. The company says the device, as yet unnamed, would let you navigate augmented-reality menus by just thinking about moving your finger to scroll. A quick refresher on augmented reality: It overlays information on your view of the real world, whether it's data, maps, or other images.
The most successful experiment in augmented reality was Pokemon Go, which took the world by storm in 2016 as players crisscrossed neighborhoods in search of elusive Pokemon characters. That initial promise has faded over the intervening years, however, as companies have struggled to translate the technology into something appealing, light, and usable. Google Glass and Snap Spectacles bombed, for example: people simply did not want to use them. Facebook thinks its wristband is more user friendly. Does it work the way Facebook claims? Too soon to tell. The product is still in research and development at the company's internal Facebook Reality Labs, and I didn't get to have a go. No word yet on when it will be released or how much it will cost, either. Years in the making: Facebook acquired startup CTRL-labs in September 2019 for between $500 million and $1 billion. CTRL had been working on its own wrist-based EMG device, and its head, Thomas Reardon, now leads Facebook's AR/VR research team. At the press preview, Reardon said the device was "not mind control." He added, "This is coming from the part of the brain that controls motor information, not thought."
The most successful experiment in augmented reality was Pokemon Go, which took the world by storm in 2016 as players crisscrossed neighborhoods in search of elusive Pokemon characters. That initial promise has faded over the intervening years, however, as companies have struggled to translate the technology into something appealing, light, and usable. Google Glass and Snap Spectacles bombed, for example: people simply did not want to use them. Facebook thinks its wristband is more user friendly. Does it work the way Facebook claims? Too soon to tell. The product is still in research and development at the company's internal Facebook Reality Labs, and I didn't get to have a go. No word yet on when it will be released or how much it will cost, either. Years in the making: Facebook acquired startup CTRL-labs in September 2019 for between $500 million and $1 billion. CTRL had been working on its own wrist-based EMG device, and its head, Thomas Reardon, now leads Facebook's AR/VR research team. At the press preview, Reardon said the device was "not mind control." He added, "This is coming from the part of the brain that controls motor information, not thought."
Self defeating (Score:5, Funny)
This is a self-defeating proposition, since Facebook causes brain atrophy.
Mind in the middle. (Score:2)
Facebook listening in on your mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Time saver... (Score:2, Funny)
The wristband, which looks like a clunky iPod on a strap, uses sensors to detect movements you intend to make.
Facebook CTRL has detected you intend to masturbate and opened 20 porn tabs in Firefox!
When choosing a vendor (Score:2)
How about . . . Facebook ?
It doesn't read your brain's intentions (Score:2)
It detects how your muscles (intend to?) move. It has nothing to do with your brain - it literally works on electrical commands to your muscles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, my finger's physical motion is controlled by my brain, that's true. But seeing me move my fingers isn't something I would call reading my brain. Since this seems to just detect finger motion via sniffing those signals it doesn't seem to really have anything to do with your brain or central nervous system - just the peripheral nervous system [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Giving any of the big surveillance marketing companies access to any sensor attached to you is an incredibly questionable idea. Their ability to drill WAY too far into your life is already jaw dropping and the idea that they can go "just a little bit farther" should scare people because they are going to go "just a little bit farther" hundreds of times more.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, yes it can read more information than you expect. But it cannot read your brain. It's far more analogous to an Apple watch or a 500fps camera watching your arm muscles. Still intrusive, and can probably reveal when you micro-tense up and stuff. But not like it can pull information from your brain.
I haven't seen the password/keyboard extraction from smartwatches. It sounds plausible. Got a link?
Re: It doesn't read your brain's intentions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's your intent but they just capture it a bit late is all :)
Re: (Score:2)
So why the extra hardware? Every $30 fake smart watch from China these days contains the accelerometers necessary to do this, why not just do it in software for iOs, Tinzen, and Android, and just put it on the app stores?
Re: (Score:2)
The accelerometers aren't good enough to detect finger motions reliably enough.
Re: (Score:2)
This video [youtu.be] explains the technology and some uses cases. It's not reading how your muscles move but the signals being sent to your muscles. So if the muscle is restrained [youtu.be] it still is capable of capturing your intention. It gets wilder in that it takes a lot of signals from many different motor neurons to actually make your muscles to contract in a way we classify as movement. So you can train yourself to control multi axis devices without actually moving. [youtu.be] Well, technically muscles are always contracting but
what facebook is really making is (Score:3)
Don't even think about it! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if your real hand does it. This is, in essence, a sniffer on the commands your brain issues to your muscles. It doesn't detect "intent" in an abstract thought way, it detects "contract muscle X Y%" style commands.
Mind blown (Score:2)
Your brain is the only thing you can control anything with.
I have a bracelet to control my computer (Score:5, Funny)
It's called a wrist. There's a hand attached to it that types and works a mouse - mostly to close Facebook or write Tampermonkey scripts to neuter Facebook scripts that Noscript or uBlock Origin won't take care of for some reason.
This feels like many failed technologies (Score:2)
It detects you moving your finger and pretends that's a scroll wheel. But your finger is still moving and not getting tactile resistance. Laser keyboards seem quite similar and, while fun to play with, never took off. It doesn't seem to do anything you couldn't do with a Leap Motion five years ago - detect how your fingers moved. (A Kinect was too low resolution). These are always cool but run into all the gorilla arm problems. Plus, how accurate is this technology going to be without training it to y
Re: (Score:2)
nobody was talking about FB.. so, clearly, the problem was solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is not accurate. It's way more powerful than a Leap Motion.
It is capable capturing your intentions [youtube.com] which don't have to match your actual movements. So you can train yourself to control multi axis devices without actually moving [youtu.be]. Well, technically muscles are always contracting but not enough of them to actually produce physical movement you visible the naked eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Both videos show someone's hand restrained. Yes, the muscles contracting don't have to match the fingers' motion, but that's physics. There's no evidence you can subtle enough signals to your hand to be detected without actually moving. Hell, the only reason you couldn't see the muscles move in the first one is because they were blocked by a fist and it was far away.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying muscles in your arm/wrist/hand don't move...
Something has to move/react because you're sending "move" signals from your brain (motor cortex) to that arm where the sensor is so there is always some amount of muscle movement. However, you don't have to map them the same way as your physical body. Say in order to make a fist with your physical hand it takes 100 specific motor neurons to signal all relevant muscles to contract. You don't have to use that same mapping or even 100 to make your virt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do these demonstrations [youtu.be] (specifically the Dino Rider and Asteroids part) not satisfy being classified as Neurocontrol?
Do you mean there hasn't been a live/public demonstration to verify their these demos are real? Or is it the fact that signal is obtained via motor neurons rather than directly from the brain it's not actually defined as Neurocontrol?
Also, didn't you hear Cold Fusion is only a couple years away!
Re: (Score:2)
I mean I can see the muscles flexing in the Asteroids version. I thought the idea behind Neurocontrol was it wasn't muscle based.
Look, brains are pretty awesome and people blind people can learn to see by machines that prick their skin, etc. I have no doubt that if it was important you could learn to control a six-fingered prosthetic via this device. But the amount of time it would take to rewire how your brain works to take advantage of that means that it's going to only be for permanent changes.
It is a
Re: (Score:2)
To me it looks like what they are demonstrating is legit neurocontrol and the muscle contractions you see are just a byproduct of using a shared data bus.
The person doesn't have to be consciously attempting to move those specific muscles in their arm/hand you see contracting... Their "move ship" or "jump dinosaur" thought triggers muscles in their hand to contract because they are using the same wiring. If we directly wired this device to your brain you could avoid such problems, but because we can't do tha
Re: (Score:2)
You don't actually have to move, [youtube.com] at least not in the traditional sense... You effectively reduce your muscle movements to levels imperceptible to the naked eye. I haven't personally tried the device so I don't know if it feels like you're just really concentrating deeply the entire time or you can get to a place where it requires as conscious thought as walking. You think about where you want to go but not about the complex movement you are actually performing. So you aren't consciously breaking down all
Re: (Score:2)
Your video shows the muscles clearly straining in the hand as a table holds it still. Like, yes, if you try to flex the muscles and they physically are stopped it can still be detected. But there's no evidence it will be subtle enough to be undetected.
Neurocontrol sensors are, hardware-wise, decades old solved technology. It's always been a software problem. In much the same way that if I
Or maybe... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I'm surprised they're even spending the money on the research. As we found out earlier this year, all it takes is a a few memes to... oh I dunno, just plucking a random example out of thin air: get people to riot over a landslide election.
I use both hands to type and deal with interfaces. (Score:3)
Insanely misleading title (Score:3)
The bracelet will let you control computers with gestures. Ultimately, yes, your gestures are controlled by your brain, but this would be like saying you drive a car with your brain... True at an abstract level, but really f****ing misleading.
It picks up motions / neural signals to the hands, it provides vibration or similar haptic feedback. It's not magic, and it has nothing to do with your brain in a meaningful way.
~D
Re: (Score:2)
No, look closer... You don't have to actually make gestures in the traditional sense. You can control multi axis devices without actually moving [youtu.be]. Well, technically some of your muscles are always contracting but not enough of them to actually produce physical movement you visible the naked eye.
Re: (Score:2)
We've reduced the movement required for typing from long keystrokes on a typewriter to some key switches that have as little as 2mm of travel. Reducing even further is great, especially for certain use cases (if the hand is constrained, for example), but I still argue that the stating it's controlling something with your brain is highly misleading startup-speak that pisses folks like me off to no end.
I do appreciate that you referenced an appropriate video from CTRL-labs (staff now hired by FB Reality Labs)
Re: (Score:2)
I highly recommend you listen to this interview [youtu.be] with Reardon as it makes the potential "black magic" uses for this device a bit more explicit. My understanding is it's way more powerful than just removing the travel distance/time from a keyboard but crazy stuff like making it impossible to make a typo. If you intend to hit the "E" key you won't be capable of missing it because it will capture your intention not where you actual muscles physically would move your finger.
Of course in reality it's not quite th
remember that article about misinformation... (Score:1)
.. "Google Glass and Snap Spectacles bombed, for example: people simply did not want to use them." - yeah lets just re-write history to better fit our narrative. if you'll recall, Google Glass made huge waves and a lot of people wanted them, but nobody could get them. Snap Spectacles also made waves and many people were able to use them successful. just because it was a fad/trend, don't act like people didnt want them. please, remember back ALL the way back to 2016, I know its hard for you... but this was n
Re: (Score:2)
Some people may have wanted Google Glass, but everyone I know had a "No Glassholes" policy.
Angry Zuck? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Wirehead 0.45 (Score:2)
OS droud 0.9
Porn.. (Score:2)
Soviet Facebook. (Score:1)
And Soviet Facebook is making a bracelet that will let your computer control your brain.
No brain! (Score:2)
It's a good thing I have no brain. :P