Next X-Prize — $10M For a Brain-Computer Interface 175
The first X-Prize was about reaching space. Now, reader destinyland writes "This time it's inner space, as Peter Diamandis holds a workshop at MIT discussing a $10 million X-Prize for building a brain-computer interface. This article includes video of Ray Kurzweil's 36-minute presentation, 'Merging the Human Brain with Its Creations,' and MIT synthetic neuroscientist Ed Boyden also made a presentation, followed by discussion groups about Input/Output, Control, Sensory, and Learning. Besides the ability to communicate by thought, the article argues, a Brain-Computer Interface X Prize 'will reward nothing less than a team that provides vision to the blind, new bodies to disabled people, and perhaps even a geographical 'sixth sense' akin to a GPS iPhone app in the brain.'"
It's already done (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This will be one of the shorter X-Prize contest (Score:4, Insightful)
One aspect to this is programming the mind itself.
To some extent we already do this naturally with our learning and memory forming cognitive capabilities. Simple programs are easily written to our minds.
THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING
YOU ARE NOW BREATHING MANUALLY
It will take time to build a language in which we can program more complex behaviors, but I have no doubt it is possible.
Non-Standard Interface (Score:3, Insightful)
The big problem I see is that unlike regular computer interfaces, which have tightly defined specs for physical connectivity, voltage levels, signalling etc, brains tend to be unique, irregular and dynamic, with only very rough maps available of which area has which function.
Unlike TCP/IP, There's no clear distinction between the link, transport and application layers to work with in the brain, they blend together. So it might be possible to implement on an individual level with a ton of work, but I can't see it happening generally.
Re:communicate from dreams (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We're not even close (Score:5, Insightful)
> we still do not have the ability to even accurately map active neural networks in the brain let alone communicate with them in real time.
Does the prize apply if the BCI only works if it is installed at an early age?
That way we don't need to have accurate maps of the neural networks (which are likely subtly different for each brain).
We just put the interface in, and let the brain learn how to use it - just the way tetrachromats get four colour vision while most humans have 3 colour vision.
Or how humans can learn how to use echolocation, see with their tongues (google seeing with tongue), or see with sound that's derived from videos/pictures ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0lmSYP7OcM [youtube.com] ).
Prize not needed and too small (Score:5, Insightful)
A $10 million prize is absolute peanuts compared to the obvious commercial value of a usable, non-invasive (or at least low-risk) BCI. Just for starters, an effective BCI would largely solve some of the major side effects of a stroke. That right there is a massive, multi-billion dollar market. Another $10 million is not going to substantially stimulate research and development in this area. It's like offering $10 million for a cure for cancer.
Furthermore, this is an invention with applications in dozens of areas. The company or individual that invents it would be swamped with licensing offers.
Compare this to the original X-Prize. There a prize was useful because there was no substantial pre-existing market for the technology being developed and there were relatively few areas of application for the technology. Under those circumstances a prize model makes sense.
But for situations like this one we already have a prize; it's called a patent. Even better, the value of the prize is determined by the market, so there's less of a risk of under or overvaluing the invention.
Re:Prize not needed and too small (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I realized this is just clever Venture Capitalism. You want to throw $10M into a startup, to help it with a portion of startup costs for bringing the project to market. You don't want to throw a lot of money at R&D in the initial phases when you have no idea if the person/team/company in question will be able to deliver something legitimate or not.
Actually venture capitalism is usually most valuable at the R&D stage. The X-Prize is a VC who only wants to come in after the idea has already been proven. At that point you normally have no shortage of (non-VC) investors. Where you still need VC is when it's uncertain whether there's actually a market for the product or not.
That's why the space flight X-Prize was useful. Even once you had the proven technology there was no guarantee you were going to be able to recoup your costs because the market was so uncertain. The X-Prize helped overcome that by trying to ensure that the winner would at least break even. (Of course, the winner actually spent well over $10 million but you get the idea).
In this case, the market is guaranteed. Indeed, there are markets for the limited BCI that we have already. The first truly usable, safe BCI will make billions.
Sure, throwing $10M into a startup doing commercial space flight or Brain Computer Interfaces, etc, is peanuts compared to the eventual payoff from the market, $10M is still $10M and should at least provide a little help to anyone struggling to bring a great, proven idea to market.
The issue isn't getting the money to bring it to market. Proven BCI technology will have no shortage of investors willing to pay for patenting, FDA approval, manufacturing, etc. The issue with BCI is developing the technology in the first place, which requires real VC willing to get in at the R&D stage, existing corporate R&D, or non-commercial funding like NIH grants and university research.
Manned commercial space flight was different. Not only was the technology not there, but the market wasn't necessarily there either. So it needed both early funding (which the serious competitors had) and a guarantee that the investors wouldn't lose their shirts if the market failed to materialize. That's where the X-Prize stepped in.
if you think of it as an investment and an effective PR stunt, then it's still useful, I suppose.
Commercial space flight benefited from the PR, to be sure. But in the case of BCI, there's so much money to be made that the companies that would commercialize the technology will be paying plenty of attention, prize or no prize.
I don't mean to rain on the X-Prize's parade. BCI is a big deal, and I suppose the prize can't hurt. But I think there are areas where they could get more bang for their buck.