how good is non-invasive writing into the brain or brain modulation, especially when assisted by feedback from the reading
what are the risks, and how manageable they are
what are the possible set-ups to use this (ranging from relatively softcore set-ups like electronic versions of nootropics, stimulants, and psychedelics, to more hardcore setups like tightly integrated information processing by a biological brain and an electronic device together)
Starting from the question of possible set-ups, I was thinking about this on and off since the peak of my “rave and psytrance days” which was long ago, and I wrote a possible design spec about this 10-12 years ago, and, of course, this is one of many possible designs, and I am sure other designs of this kind exist, but this one is one possible example of how this can be done: https://github.com/anhinga/2021-notes/tree/main/mind-games
The most crucial question is how good is non-invasive reading from the brain. We are seeing rapid progress in this sense in the last few years. I noticed the first promised report from 2019 and made a note of it at the bottom of mind-games/post-2-measuring-conscious-state.md, but these days we are inundated by this kind of reports of progress and successes in non-invasive reading from the brain via various channels, so these days it’s more “yes, we can do a lot even with something as simple as a high-end EEG, but can we do enough with a superconvenient low-end consumer-grade headband EEG or in-the-ear EEG, so that it’s not just non-invasive, but actually non-interfering with convenience”.
So, in the sense of non-invasive reading, there are reasons for optimism.
With writing and modulation, audio-visual channels are not just information carrying, but very psychoactive. For example, following MIT reports on curative properties of 40hz audio-visual impacts I self-experimented with 40hz sound (mostly in the form 40hz sine wave test tone) and found it strongly stimulating and also acoustically priming.
In this sense, the information still going into the brain in the ordinary fashion via audio-visual channel, but there is also strong neuromodulation. And then, if one simultaneously reads from the brain, one has real-time feedback and can tune the impact a lot (but this is associated with potentially increased risks). I wrote more about this in mind-games/post-4-closing-the-loop.md
People also explore transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current, and especially transcranial ultrasound in recent years. Speaking of transcranial ultrasound, there is a long series of posts between Oct 6 and Dec 11 on this substack, and it covers both the potential of this, and evaluates risks:
It’s really easy to cause full-blown seizures just by being a bit too aggressive with strobe lights (I did it to myself once many years ago with a light-and-sound machine (an inexpensive eyeglasses with flashing lights) by disobeying the instructions to keep my eyes closed, because it was so boring to keep them closed, and the visuals were so pretty when the eyes were open, and getting prettier every few seconds, and even prettier, and then … you know).
When dealing with a closed feedback loop the risks are very formidable (even if there is no “AI” on the electronic side of things, and there might be one). I start to discuss the appropriate safety protocols in mind-games/post-4-closing-the-loop.md
The post on risks of transcranial ultrasound by Sarah Constantin does make me quite apprehensive (e.g. there is a company named Prophetic AI, which hopes to have an EEG/transcranial ultrasound headband stabilizing lucid dreams, and I am sure it’s doable, but am I comfortable with the risks here? It’s a strange situation where the risks are “officially low”, but it’s less clear whether they are all that low in reality).
So, yes, if we can navigate the risks, I think that our capabilities to read from the brain are now very powerful (and we can read from the body, polygraph-style too, but particularly minding the risk of the feedback situation here), and we can achieve at minimum pretty effective cognitive modulation via audio-visual channels, and probably much more...
Of course, people will try to have narrowly crafted AIs on the electronic side (these days the thought is rather obvious), so if one pushes harder one can really optimize a joint cognitive process by a human and a narrow AI interacting with each other, but can this be done in a safe and beneficial manner?
Basically, non-invasiveness of interfaces should not lull us into the false sense of safety in these kinds of experiments, and I think one needs to keep a laser-sharp focus on risk management, but other than that, from the purely technical viewpoint, pieces seem to be ready.
Yes, I think there are four components here:
how good is non-invasive reading from the brain
how good is non-invasive writing into the brain or brain modulation, especially when assisted by feedback from the reading
what are the risks, and how manageable they are
what are the possible set-ups to use this (ranging from relatively softcore set-ups like electronic versions of nootropics, stimulants, and psychedelics, to more hardcore setups like tightly integrated information processing by a biological brain and an electronic device together)
Starting from the question of possible set-ups, I was thinking about this on and off since the peak of my “rave and psytrance days” which was long ago, and I wrote a possible design spec about this 10-12 years ago, and, of course, this is one of many possible designs, and I am sure other designs of this kind exist, but this one is one possible example of how this can be done: https://github.com/anhinga/2021-notes/tree/main/mind-games
The most crucial question is how good is non-invasive reading from the brain. We are seeing rapid progress in this sense in the last few years. I noticed the first promised report from 2019 and made a note of it at the bottom of mind-games/post-2-measuring-conscious-state.md, but these days we are inundated by this kind of reports of progress and successes in non-invasive reading from the brain via various channels, so these days it’s more “yes, we can do a lot even with something as simple as a high-end EEG, but can we do enough with a superconvenient low-end consumer-grade headband EEG or in-the-ear EEG, so that it’s not just non-invasive, but actually non-interfering with convenience”.
So, in the sense of non-invasive reading, there are reasons for optimism.
With writing and modulation, audio-visual channels are not just information carrying, but very psychoactive. For example, following MIT reports on curative properties of 40hz audio-visual impacts I self-experimented with 40hz sound (mostly in the form 40hz sine wave test tone) and found it strongly stimulating and also acoustically priming.
In this sense, the information still going into the brain in the ordinary fashion via audio-visual channel, but there is also strong neuromodulation. And then, if one simultaneously reads from the brain, one has real-time feedback and can tune the impact a lot (but this is associated with potentially increased risks). I wrote more about this in mind-games/post-4-closing-the-loop.md
People also explore transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current, and especially transcranial ultrasound in recent years. Speaking of transcranial ultrasound, there is a long series of posts between Oct 6 and Dec 11 on this substack, and it covers both the potential of this, and evaluates risks:
https://sarahconstantin.substack.com/p/ultrasound-neuromodulation (Oct 6)
a lot of posts on this topic in between
https://sarahconstantin.substack.com/p/risks-of-ultrasound-neuromodulation (Dec 11)
Now, it’s a good point to move to risks.
It’s really easy to cause full-blown seizures just by being a bit too aggressive with strobe lights (I did it to myself once many years ago with a light-and-sound machine (an inexpensive eyeglasses with flashing lights) by disobeying the instructions to keep my eyes closed, because it was so boring to keep them closed, and the visuals were so pretty when the eyes were open, and getting prettier every few seconds, and even prettier, and then … you know).
When dealing with a closed feedback loop the risks are very formidable (even if there is no “AI” on the electronic side of things, and there might be one). I start to discuss the appropriate safety protocols in mind-games/post-4-closing-the-loop.md
The post on risks of transcranial ultrasound by Sarah Constantin does make me quite apprehensive (e.g. there is a company named Prophetic AI, which hopes to have an EEG/transcranial ultrasound headband stabilizing lucid dreams, and I am sure it’s doable, but am I comfortable with the risks here? It’s a strange situation where the risks are “officially low”, but it’s less clear whether they are all that low in reality).
So, yes, if we can navigate the risks, I think that our capabilities to read from the brain are now very powerful (and we can read from the body, polygraph-style too, but particularly minding the risk of the feedback situation here), and we can achieve at minimum pretty effective cognitive modulation via audio-visual channels, and probably much more...
Of course, people will try to have narrowly crafted AIs on the electronic side (these days the thought is rather obvious), so if one pushes harder one can really optimize a joint cognitive process by a human and a narrow AI interacting with each other, but can this be done in a safe and beneficial manner?
Basically, non-invasiveness of interfaces should not lull us into the false sense of safety in these kinds of experiments, and I think one needs to keep a laser-sharp focus on risk management, but other than that, from the purely technical viewpoint, pieces seem to be ready.