The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Um, it's because we know that the ballpark is there, but we know that everyone's brain at that detail level. Like, if you're going to reconstruct their words, you can't just be in the ballpark. You have to know basically like what each leaf of grass on that ballpark is doing. And that's highly variable across individuals.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So all of these tools that we now are using every day, transcribing our voice right now into text, um we use that technology. We can actually use those same technologies that generate voices called uh uh speech synthesis. And so we've used a lot of the same tools, machine learning tools that are in modern day AIS and we're now applying them on the brain activity and trying to use them to not translate, for example, text and synthesized speech. But now the equation is different. It's translating from brain activity into synthesized speech.
All of these tools that we now are using every day, transcribing our voice right now into text, um, we use that technology. We can actually use those same technologies that generate voices called, uh, uh, speech synthesis. And so we've used a lot of the same tools, machine learning tools that are in modern day AIs and we're now applying them on the brain activity and trying to use them to not translate for example text and synthesized speech. But now the equation is different. It's translating from brain activity into synthesized speech.