Even the great prophet of the 20th century, George Orwell, couldn’t have predicted this. Functional MRIs (fMRIs) are zeroing in on mind reading.
An individually trained semantic decoder translated brain patterns on functional MRI (fMRI) into continuous streams of text, a small study showed.
The customized decoder used fMRI responses to generate text describing an individual’s imagined stories, the contents of podcasts they listened to, and silent videos they watched, reported Alexander Huth, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, and co-authors in Nature Neuroscience.
The study claims that the decoder “often” recovered the “gist of a person’s internal speech,” but it’s not yet able to come up with a verbatim transcript of what the subject is thinking. However, “about half the time, the decoder produced text that closely or precisely matched the intended meanings of the words a person was thinking,” according to Med Page Today.
Huth called the noninvasive technology “a real leap forward compared to what’s been done before, which is typically single words or short sentences.”
He added that scientists are “getting the model to decode continuous language for extended periods of time with complicated ideas.”
Related: Techno-Hell: ‘AI Godfather’ Geoffrey Hinton Quits Google to Expose AI Dangers
What that could mean for those of us who have thoughts and ideas that don’t go along with the Approved Narrative is anyone’s guess, but it’s not a giant leap to understand how dangerous such technology could be if it’s eventually perfected. China is already using social credit scores — gleaned from social media, geolocation, associations, reading habits, church attendance, and more — to determine how much freedom its citizens are allowed to enjoy. Progressives in the U.S. are likely salivating at this new technology, fantasizing about how it could be used to police thought crimes of those who dissent from the cultural chaos the left has imposed upon us.
For now, the technology is clunky and impractical:
The system requires extensive training to work, Huth noted. “A person needs to spend up to 15 hours lying in an MRI scanner, being perfectly still, and paying good attention to stories that they’re listening to before this really works well on them,” he said.
The goal of language decoding is to use brain activity recordings to predict the words someone is hearing, saying, or imagining, said co-author Jerry Tang, PhD candidate at the University of Texas at Austin. “Eventually, we hope this technology can help people who lost the ability to speak due to injuries like stroke or diseases like ALS,” he stated.
“Our study is the first to decode continuous language — meaning more than single words or sentences — from noninvasive brain recordings,” Tang added. Currently, decoding language from neural activity relies mainly on invasive brain-computer interfaces that require surgical implantsopens in a new tab or window.
These studies always begin with the desire to “help” people in need. And as far as it goes, such technology could very well aid individuals with language disorders. The problem is what happens when it gets into the wrong hands. When it becomes a tool for the government to use against citizens. Perhaps it will begin with requiring thought scans for those seeking Top Secret clearances or intel officers in the military. From there, it could spread to everything from workplaces, to divorce proceedings, to permits to build new churches. The possibilities are endless.
Nita Farahany, JD, Ph.D., of Duke University in Durham, N.C., gave the nod to the potential dangers of such technology: “While people can employ effective countermeasures to prevent decoding their brains using fMRI, as brain wearables become widespread that may not be an effective way to protect us from interception, manipulation, or even punishment for our thoughts. ”
Jerry Tang, Ph.D. candidate at the University of Texas at Austin and co-author of the study, added, “I think right now, while the technology is in such an early state, it’s important to be proactive by enacting policies that protect people and their privacy… Regulating what these devices can be used for is also very important.”
But it never seems to work out that way, does it?