Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Deafwindow t1_j60l7e1 wrote

Reply to comment by VincentNacon in An ALS patient set a record for communicating via a brain implant: 62 words per minute by ChickenTeriyakiBoy1

It's above the average typing speed at least

95

Caffeine_Monster t1_j62relh wrote

It actually makes me wonder what the upper limit for human thought -> text entry is. I imagine it will be much higher than typing or speaking once the technology is refined. Ultimately this may drive healthy people to get an implant.

56

ArvindS0508 t1_j6377yc wrote

I think the upper limit will be beyond anything relating to language, like speaking or even thinking words. It'd be something like transcribing thoughts themselves from abstract forms into words.

34

x755x t1_j63tq89 wrote

I would love for somebody to transcribe the particular fuzzy images of people I imagine the same every time as my mental concept of actions like "driving" or "football". I'm pretty sure they're people contorted in ways that are impossible. But I can't even remember the image after it connects my thoughts, it's like a dream. Am I the only one?

8

Ambiwlans t1_j66tf1e wrote

We actually have an early brainwave to images ai now, release was a few months ago. Still needs a few years before it'll do arbitrary images though.

2

jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j6404qs wrote

Yeah. Or me imagining a 3d printed object and CAD software creating it for me

3

xOneLeafyBoi t1_j63f1mn wrote

I’m not sure what the upper limit for human thought is, but I’m sure 3.5g of magic mushrooms will take you towards it.

9

Rusty_Shakalford t1_j63kxqa wrote

Probably not. Research on speed reading has mostly supported the idea that the rate at which we naturally speak is the limit to which our brains can meaningfully process information. That is, while you can train yourself to understand text and speech a bit faster than normal, “speeding” through pages of text in a second isn’t any better than untrained skimming. Getting rid of “subvocalization” (I.e that inner voice many hear when reading), as many advocates of the method propose, does nothing to change that.

In other words, with a bit of training I suspect you might be able to output text like the micro machines guy, but none of it would have any meaningful thought behind it. That is, two people would not be able to have a “sped up” conversation, nor would it let you output a book any quicker.

4

jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j640myw wrote

Eh I disagree

The rate at which I speak is much slower than what I can think in words

But more over, I mostly think in multiple streams of thought and images. There's so much information that I can try to pack in at one time

Yes, the people trying to understand me would be the bottleneck... But if we're just talking creating, I can type very fast (love 120+ WPS) but my brain can still go much faster than that

Plus you'd be thinking mostly in words rather than letters. You would just say "cat" and it would know. Instead of C...A...T...

1

Ambiwlans t1_j66tl34 wrote

No evidence that the thought speed isn't a learned limit through speaking.

I typically watch tv at 2-3x speed and suspect that i'd be able to close to 2x speed if my tongue were more nimble. In Japanese i convey information probably 1.5x the speed i do in English (my native language). Simply because it supports faster speaking.

1

Rusty_Shakalford t1_j66uvm2 wrote

> No evidence that the thought speed isn't a learned limit through speaking.

There is.

Average syllable count per second varies across languages. But when the linked study looked at how fast information is actually conveyed they all do so at roughly the same rate.

1