Neat. It can be used to make enemies of the state give up information/names/locations of stolen goods, persons, or illicit activities. Kidnappers and ransom takers, etc.
Unfortunately. What some people forget. Is just how the first computer was a massive, costly piece of machinery that took up the entire wall of a decent sized room. We now have them we can wear on our wrists for $50.
Secret drones the size of a housefly exist. Only a matter of time before they hit the market and become affordable any college kid can get hold of.
So what happens, if the current pattern continues? Dare you ask? You could potentially offer to give someone a ride and have the roof or seat of your car equipped with non-contact "brain sensors" of this type and bring up in conversation, "Man someone figured out my bank pin. I used all 4's. I was so dumb. Hey. Whatever your bank pin is... make sure it's good." Upon triggering someone manually by such a phrase it will likely come up in their head, unless you're, what is basically crazy, and start thinking random numbers as quickly and feverishly as possible.
Scary direction indeed. What does this mean for the future of humanity? One could only imagine.
You could potentially offer to give someone a ride and have the roof or seat of your car equipped with non-contact "brain sensors...
It is worth noting the 15 hours that subjects spent in a scanner before the AI that was used had sufficient training data on the individual to be able to decode that individual's thoughts. Without the AI having been trained to form correct associations, between a specific individual's brain activity and what the individual was thinking about, the system can't decode thoughts.
Well that's somewhat pleasing and comforting to hear. However, like I said. The first million dollar computer that took years of research and took up the size of a room, we now wear on our wrists for little more than the cost of a large pizza. Took 50 years to make that progress. And since then, further progress seems to come so quickly it has become superfluous. So, you see the concern and validity of my argument I'm sure.
Without the AI having been trained to form correct associations, between a specific individual's brain activity and what the individual was thinking about, the system can't decode thoughts.
:up: Important point. I hadn't picked up the specificity on first listening.
The first million dollar computer that took years of research and took up the size of a room, we now wear on our wrists for little more than the cost of a large pizza.
I read not long ago that there is more computing power in a singing christmas card than existed in the world in 1946.
On a more serious note, I think the video does a fairly balanced job of conveying concerns about what exploitations of this kind of technology could do. I suppose one way of thinking about it is asking whether the risks involved in such technologies are exacerbated by seeking to exploit them for commercial gain. As is well known, the kinds of multiplier effects that have been witnessed with the growth of social media and internet search have given rise to vast fortunes for companies including Alphabet and Meta, and many others. But on the other hand the pursuit of profit may not be a particularly sound motivation when it comes to researching this kind of technology - as the producer suggests. He says that the research and possible scientific applications are one thing, but that 'productizing' it is another matter entirely.
On a side note, both the founders of OpenAI, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, were both sacked by the board, out of the blue, last Friday. It seems to have taken everyone by surprise (gift link to NY Times analysis.) The conflict inside OpenAI also seems to be, at least in part, about the dangers of commercialisation.
As to the philosophical implications, they are indeed fascinating, but I want to resist the inevitable suggestion that we've 'figured out how the mind operates'. As noted already, the system requires extensive sychronisation with a specific subject in order to be effective. (I also picked up a way in which the predictive power of the algorithm to complete sentences is modelled on Shannon's theory.) And last but not least, the system is imbued with whatever power it has by scientific expertise and insights.
The breakthrough part is to do with the use of AI to do the decoding, but the ability to decode has been around for a while now. I remember reading what seems like ages ago about some Japanese scientists that were able to record dream imagery using fMRI.
About Sam Altman getting fired, i wonder if it has anything to do with government and national security, since AI is considered to be as, or more dangerous than nuclear weapons. If OpenAI has achieved AGI or is very close to it then the government might feel the need to step in to take control of the situation in a secretive way. Imagine the government allowing corporations to develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to. I heard that Joe Biden recently saw the last Mission Impossible movie and got spooked by the film's AI villain, along with the recent AI safety executive order he put out seems like a non-zero probability.
Reply to punos There's about a couple of dozen plausible movie plots right there, sci-fi, espionage and end-of-world scenarios, writers will be able to take their pick.
Unfortunately. What some people forget. Is just how the first computer was a massive, costly piece of machinery that took up the entire wall of a decent sized room. We now have them we can wear on our wrists for $50.
There probably is a limit to how far from a person's skull the sensors can be, no matter how good they are. For example, past a certain point, radio signals from Earth become unextractable, no matter how good a radio telescope. I think that no matter how advanced the tech gets, the sensors will have to be close to the head, and there will have to be at least a couple of them.
Also, while it's true we have computers on our wrists, I don't think we're ever going to have quantum computers on our wrists, or table-top gravitational wave detectors. Some things are really hard to miniaturize, and I'm betting this is one of them.
Reply to RogueAI Have you signed up and actually used ChatGPT yet? It must be a year since it came out .quick google .Nov 30th 2022 and Ive been bouncing ideas of it since Day 1. Its really quite incredible - not all knowing, not perfect, but still totally amazing.
As for quantum computers, thats another matter altogether, and one Im highly sceptical about, but thats for another thread.
Here's a link I posted awhile back in The Post Linguistic Turn thread, which discusses the original research discussed in the OP video. From that earlier link:
Decoding worked only with cooperative participants who had participated willingly in training the decoder. If the decoder had not been trained, results were unintelligible, and if participants on whom the decoder had been trained later resisted or thought other thoughts, results were also unusable.
Also, I wonder what kind of jamming hats people could wear to thwart it?
I suspect carrying a cellphone around might be sufficient, (or could be made sufficient). However for those who prefer a lower tech solution, that link I posted says:
Since the magnetic signals emitted by the brain are on the order of a few femtoteslas, shielding from external magnetic signals, including the Earth's magnetic field, is necessary. Appropriate magnetic shielding can be obtained by constructing rooms made of aluminium and mu-metal for reducing high-frequency and low-frequency noise, respectively.
So layered Mu-metal and aluminum would do the job. Mu-metal is nice and shiny and corrosion resistant, so you could be stylin.
Alkis PiskasNovember 19, 2023 at 19:13#8546370 likes
Reply to Wayfarer
Quite impressive as a technology. Yet, I would expect at least one example of how it really works. That is, a subject thinking of something --just an image, as the apple we've seen-- and the FMRI system recognizing and naming or reproducing that image. Well, I saw nothing of the sort.
Transferring my thoughts to a machine and seeing them on a screen was always one of my wildest dreams. Reality though steps always in and stops me.
Thoughts are not physical in nature. The brain only receives signals of how the person reacts to his thoughts, i.e. the effect these thoughts have on the body. (I could explain how this works, but not here of course.)
The brain is only a stimulus-response mechanism. It receives and sends signals. That's all. Information may be stored in tissues or neurons, but always as signals. Now just imagine what a task would be to identify those signals among billions and name them, connect them as "words" and then "phrases" and so on. It would be as if we try to assemble millions of pixels in order to form an image we don't even know what it is about. And we would have to do that in a total darkness. It's not like in jigsaw puzzles, where we are given the image we are trying to solve and in plain light.
That is, a subject thinking of something --just an image, as the apple we've seen-- and the FMRI system recognizing and naming or reproducing that image. Well, I saw nothing of the sort.
Watch again. There is a sequence about exactly that at around 12:14 with about 3-4 examples (cat, train, surfer, etc.)
I think the argument can be made that there is a physical aspect to them. What is not physical is insight, grasping the relations between ideas, and understanding meaning.
Alkis PiskasNovember 20, 2023 at 06:30#8547630 likes
There is a sequence about exactly that at around 12:14 with about 3-4 examples (cat, train, surfer, etc.)
Yes, I saw that. It is what AI art-generators do based on text prompts. This must be from DALL.E 3, one of the best ones. (I have not personally tried with it but I have seen samples.) And since this can be done from text, it must also be done from speech, using a speech-to-text converter. Indeed, at some point I saw a subject moving his mouth, like murmuring or something.
Anyway, it is quite impressive as I said.
BTW, I just googled < project thoughts on screen > and got ... 396,000,000 results. (Of course these numbers are never exact, but they are quite indicative of the popularity od a subject.) I read a couple of them and these kind of projects show only a possibility. As far as fMRI esp. is conceened, it is only a possibility in the future. So, let's see what the future has reserved for us ... :smile:
I think the argument can be made that there is a physical aspect to them. What is not physical is insight, grasping the relations between ideas, and understanding meaning.
Well, they consist of energy and mass, but not of the kind we know in Physics. Yet, this energy and mass can be detected with special devices, e.g. polygraphs. (I have used such a device myself extensively. Not a polygraph.)
This detection is possibe because thoughts affect the body, as I already said. And in this way, we can have indications about the kind of thoughts the subject has --from very "light" to quite "heavy", their regular or irregular flow, their abrupt changes, etc.-- but not of course of their content.
Yes, I saw that. It is what AI art-generators do based on text prompts
You don't understand it, then. The rendered images were not from text prompts, they were from brain scans. There was no other input than a subject with electrodes attached to their cranium.
Alkis PiskasNovember 20, 2023 at 09:12#8547890 likes
Reply to Wayfarer
I didn't say that they use AI art-generators, neither that the fMRI gets text prompts, for godssake.
I said that the produced images look like those produced by AI art-generators based on text prompts. Huge difference.
But this is of secondary importance. You chose to stick on that instead of what I said it is of most importance.
Well, whatever. Just keep believing that fMRI can read thoughts ...
From https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/brain-waves:
************************************************************************************************************
Brain waves are oscillating electrical voltages in the brain measuring just a few millionths of a volt. There are five widely recognized brain waves, and the main frequencies of human EEG waves are listed in Table 2.1 along with their characteristics.
Table 2.1. Characteristics of the Five Basic Brain Waves
Frequency band Frequency Brain states
-------------- --------- -----------------------------------------------------
Gamma (?) >35 Hz Concentration
Beta (?) 1235 Hz Anxiety dominant, active, external attention, relaxed
Alpha (?) 812 Hz Very relaxed, passive attention
Theta (?) 48 Hz Deeply relaxed, inward focused
Delta (?) 0.54 Hz Sleep
Incidentally the channel, Cold Fusion TV, produces generally pretty good quality mini-documentaries on a variety of tech and business products.
I don't doubt. But you also have to look at what a lot of other sources have to say on the subject. (Again, 396,000,000 Google results!)
If some technology were even just close to being able to identify images from thoughts, such a thing would have revolutionized science --esp. psychiatry and psychology-- and the whole planet would have heard about it.
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a functional neuroimaging technique for mapping brain activity by recording magnetic fields produced by electrical currents occurring naturally in the brain, using very sensitive magnetometers. Arrays of SQUIDs (superconducting quantum interference devices) are currently the most common magnetometer, while the SERF (spin exchange relaxation-free) magnetometer is being investigated for future machines.[1][2] Applications of MEG include basic research into perceptual and cognitive brain processes, localizing regions affected by pathology before surgical removal, determining the function of various parts of the brain, and neurofeedback. This can be applied in a clinical setting to find locations of abnormalities as well as in an experimental setting to simply measure brain activity.
unenlightenedNovember 20, 2023 at 14:07#8548230 likes
Alkis PiskasNovember 20, 2023 at 14:29#8548280 likes
Reply to Wayfarer
Wayfarer, I feel somwhat bad because in some way I run against your enthusiam regarding this indeed impressive video. Unfortunately, it happens that I know well a few things that make mind-reading impossible on a content basis. But certainly I cannot exclude that it can happen in one way or another in the future. It all depends on the means one is using. And there are a lot of alternative methods in achieving such a goal.
As for Meta's technology and this video, I did a small research on the subject "Mind Reading using fMRI" (w/o quotes) restricting the period to "Last month" Meta's experiments appeared in only two articles in the first 60. (I didn't read their content.) And when I restricted the period to "Last week" --which just covers the date of the video, which was posted 1-2 days ago-- no such articles appeared. (You can verify that yourself.)
Don't you find that a little strange?
I really wish to be proved wrong and that Meta's or other technology to make my dream come true and your topic to be proved prophetic!
Do you still believe that brain waves can be used to detect the content of thoughts, like images?
The issue isnt whether machines can read thought via detecting brain waves, but what kind of thinking is involved.
We know that implanted electodes can detect neural
signals in limbs and translate them into controllable prosthetics. This is a primitive form of reading neural waves. One could imagine teaching someone with locked-in syndrome morse-code, and implanting electrodes strategically in a part of the brain whose activity is specifically and narrowly correlated with thinking of the pattern of dots and dashes. In this way one could decipher language before it is spoken.
At the other end of the spectrum are devices
that read the combined output of massive numbers of neurons deep in the neocortex when persons are thinking in various ways. This kind of conceptual thought, which has not yet been processed by the person into discrete words symbols, tends to be what we think of interns of mind reading, but no device has yet been able to decipher these highly complex patterns of neural firing. It sounds to me what the fMRI in the video is doing is targeting areas of the brain somewhere between the morse code example and pre-verbal thought. Once one has in mind a robustly formed verbal concept or image, then the neural measuring equipment can locate consistent neural patterns that correspond to words that are being finalized by the brain in preparation for communication via speech or gesture.
Alkis PiskasNovember 20, 2023 at 19:17#8548630 likes
The issue isnt whether machines can read thought via detecting brain waves, but what kind of thinking is involved.
Right.
Excellent description of how the brain works regarding thoughts/thinking and what possibilities exist for mind-reading. :up:
(It fills gaps in my knowledge of the subject, which I never felt the need to fill in myself. :smile:)
And when I restricted the period to "Last week" --which just covers the date of the video, which was posted 1-2 days ago-- no such articles appeared. (You can verify that yourself.)
Don't you find that a little strange?
It's cutting edge. All of those reports have only just begun to circulate, but as I said, I have reason to believe that Cold Fusion TV is a reliable source. I've watched many of their documentaries on other aspects of technology. I know what they're saying seems incredible but they're claiming to be able to generate images based on pictures that subjects are viewing with no other prompts.
Meanwhile the Sam Altman story keeps getting more far-out. Altman and Brockman have been hired by Microsoft, and practically the whole staff of OpenAI have threatened to resign and join him. It's like an episode of Billions or Succession!
Alkis PiskasNovember 21, 2023 at 07:36#8549750 likes
Meanwhile the Sam Altman story keeps getting more far-out.
I had no idea about that story. I just got informed about it. Interesting story indeed.
BTW, I read that Microsoft want both Altman and Brockman back to OpenAI. They say that they are more important than the BofD. I don't know about the truth of all that, neither the reason why Altman was dismissed. Neither why Brockman resigned from president. Well, your "Sam Altman story" is still running and we'll read new episodes soon. :smile:
Reply to Alkis Piskas I turned 70 this year, and again Im thinking what an amazing time it is to be alive. Even despite the perils and obvious doomsday scenarios. I think this augmented intelligence technology - thats what I like to call it - is an amazing phenomenon to witness first hand. Hey my grandkids dont even know what currency looks like - when I was a kid my grandparents cooked on a woodfire oven and our milk was delivered in a pail. In the old Stone Age, it took half a million years to slightly improve a flint ax. The rate of change is simultaneously exhilarating and terrifying. Even my adult son is a bit daunted by AI - he finds it threatening - but Ive been engaging with ChatGPT since the day it came out. Its truly an amazing time to be alive.
I turned 70 this year, and again Im thinking what an amazing time it is to be alive. Even despite the perils and obvious doomsday scenarios. I think this augmented intelligence technology - thats what I like to call it - is an amazing phenomenon to witness first hand. Hey my grandkids dont even know what currency looks like - when I was a kid my grandparents cooked on a woodfire oven and our milk was delivered in a pail. In the old Stone Age, it took half a million years to slightly improve a flint ax. The rate of change is simultaneously exhilarating and terrifying. Even my adult son is a bit daunted by AI - he finds it threatening - but Ive been engaging with ChatGPT since the day it came out. Its truly an amazing time to be alive.
What are your thoughts, on the fact that these things are outcomes of the same physicalist thinking that you are constantly crusading against?
Alkis PiskasNovember 21, 2023 at 16:47#8550560 likes
Reply to Wayfarer
:up:
I wish I could feel the same about the times we are living in ...
(As far as AI is concerned, I'm in AI as a programmer since 2018 --5.5 years before ChatGPT went public-- so I saw it initially as just an impressive programming devolopment. Now I'm building my own chatbot, just a toy of course compared to ChatGPT, but still the principles and thinking behind both are the same. So, unfortunately I cannot be impressed by AI as most people on the planet are.)
Alkis PiskasNovember 21, 2023 at 18:02#8550780 likes
[Re AI etc. technologies] these things are outcomes of the same physicalist thinking you are constantly crusading against
I'm also against --and even condemn-- physicalism as a single and absolute worldview, and esp. when it tries to get involved in and interpret things of a non physical nature. But I certainly cannot not appreciate, acknowledge and benefit from AI and thousands of other technologies, the existence of which is owed to Science and its "physicalist thinking".
Physicality and non physicality can coexist in harmony.
What are your thoughts, on the fact that these things are outcomes of the same physicalist thinking that you are constantly crusading against?
That science is capable of amazing achievements and discoveries, but science is also a human endeavour. The mistake of physicalism is to treat humans as objects and to forget (or even claim to eliminate :lol: ) the subject to whom the objective domain occurs.
Of all systems of philosophy which start from the object, the most consistent, and that which may be carried furthest, is simple materialism. It regards matter, and with it time and space, as existing absolutely, and ignores the relation to the subject in which alone all this really exists. It then lays hold of the law of causality as a guiding principle or clue, regarding it as a self-existent order (or arrangement) of things, veritas aeterna, and so fails to take account of the understanding, in which and for which alone causality is. It seeks the primary and most simple state of matter, and then tries to develop all the others from it; ascending from mere mechanism, to chemistry, to polarity, to the vegetable and to the animal kingdom. And if we suppose this to have been done, the last link in the chain would be animal sensibilitythat is knowledgewhich would consequently now appear as a mere modification or state of matter produced by causality. Now if we had followed materialism thus far with clear ideas, when we reached its highest point we would suddenly be seized with a fit of the inextinguishable laughter of the Olympians. As if waking from a dream, we would all at once become aware that its final resultknowledge, which it reached so laboriously, was presupposed as the indispensable condition of its very starting-point, mere matter; and when we imagined that we thought matter, we really thought only the subject that perceives matter; the eye that sees it, the hand that feels it, the understanding that knows it.
As far as AI is concerned, I'm in AI as a programmer since 2018
Is that so? I'm impressed! I've never learned to program, although I do work in information technology (as a technical writer). I was immediately won over by ChatGPT the day it came out and often bounce ideas off it (see for instance this and this.) I envision the day when it's fully integrated with voice technologies and you can simply ask questions, get advice and use it for all kinds of day-to-day purposes.
That science is capable of amazing achievements and discoveries, but science is also a human endeavour. The mistake of physicalism is to treat humans as objects and to forget (or even claim to eliminate :lol: ) the subject to whom the objective domain occurs.
You say this sort of thing a lot, but then the effectiveness of physicalist thought about minds is shown in your OP.
Reply to wonderer1 That technology does nothing to prove materialist philosophy of mind. The technology is completely dependent on human ingenuity and the ability to interpret data. It did not invent itself.
Reply to wonderer1 Metaphysical axioms are not empirically provable, they're nearer to the realm of the a priori.
I'm of the view that mathematics, for example, is fundamental to the success of science but that number is not material existent. The imagination incorporates and relies on factors which are not materially real but which can be used to great effect in the physical domain. Hence the interminable arguments about Platonism in mathematics (and I'm with the platonists in that regard).
It (materialism) then lays hold of the law of causality as a guiding principle or clue, regarding it as a self-existent order (or arrangement) of things, veritas aeterna, and so fails to take account of the understanding, in which and for which alone causality is.
The point about materialism is precisely that it regards some material existent as being ultimately real. But even there, the whole current model of physics is that - a mathematical model. So we consistently assign reality to the objective domain, as if its reality is self-evident at least in principle, without taking into account the role of the mind in constructing what we take to be independently real. You will notice that there has been no such thing as a truly existent fundamental particle ever discovered, the nearer you get to them, the more ambiguous their nature becomes. Nowadays materialism usually just amounts to appeal to the scientific method, never mind all the paradoxes and conundrums it has thrown up.
I read not long ago that there is more computing power in a singing christmas card than existed in the world in 1946.
The 1946 computers couldn't sing and the chips in singing Christmas cards can't calculate the best trajectory for a heavy shell fired at a target 3 miles away with a 10 mph headwind, etc. Different machines, different functions,
Mark Zuckerberg must be hooked up to these machines to extract whatever he has in mind for our brains.
There are too many superlatives being batted around about AI, mind reading, etc. Clearly the Tech Bros have fallen in love. (See "Sorcerer's Apprentice"; the Fantasia version will do if nothing else is available.).
These technologies are likely to generate a lot of power and money for those who can wield them. In saying that, I am estimating that it has real potential.
Reply to BC Well, yeah, as I already said, the Sam Altmann sacking seems like something right out of streaming media, billions of dollars and many big players. Meanwhle Elon Musk self-immolates on a funeral pyre of his own adolescent silliness.
And hes coming back! https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/tech/openai-altman-returns-hnk-intl?cid=ios_app
Alkis PiskasNovember 22, 2023 at 08:12#8552450 likes
Reply to Wayfarer
I wonder why don't advanced chatbots --like ChatGPT and Bing-- also use voice interaction. Speech to text and text to speech are technologies that exist since many years ago ...
I checked the links you mentioned. They both lead to https://chat.openai.com. What's special about it? It's the standard ChatGPT interface.
BTW, I explained to @wonderer1, who argued against you, by saying "these things are outcomes of the same physicalist thinking you are constantly crusading against", that being against physical thinking is irrelevant to questions rergarding technology, but he didn't bother to reply. Most probably he undesrstood that he was wrong and doesn't want to admit it. (I forgot to add a mention link to you. See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/855078.)
I checked the links you mentioned. They both lead to https://chat.openai.com
I thought I had created links to specific interactions. I didnt realize you would need to log in to review them, sorry. Ill look into that, its a definite down-mark if that is so.
I agree with your point about the fact that this technology does not support physicalism. It is able to infer images on the basis of huge amounts of processing power and computer memory. I wonder how it could interpret a simple idea such as greater than?
I thought I had created links to specific interactions. I didnt realize you would need to log in to review them, sorry. Ill look into that, its a definite down-mark if that is so.
You most probably did. But I had to log in with your details to see them. Using my own login details I just saw my own ChatGPT content.
[Re: AI tehncology] It is able to infer images on the basis of huge amounts of processing power and computer memory. I wonder how it could interpret a simple idea such as greater than?
That is, how could it use logic, in general. I wonder about that, too. Maybe this is the task of the AI system that will be used. I can't say. I lack a lot information on both sides: Available or potentially available AI methods and esp. the brain.
can you try this one again?
https://chat.openai.com/share/967940e0-886c-4fd6-b919-ebe16a002d7e
I did. I was landed on "Explanatory Gap in Consciousness". I didn't know that one can share ChatGPT chats. I will read all that and come back to you later ...
Alkis PiskasNovember 22, 2023 at 11:29#8552730 likes
Reply to Wayfarer
Wow! I'm stunned. What a chat! I had no idea ... never heard about such a kind of chat with ChatGPT. I didn't even try myself. The largest prompts I have used are simple math problems and their solutions ...
I didn't read details ... Is ChatGPT's response any good?
BTW, I explained to wonderer1, who argued against you, by saying "these things are outcomes of the same physicalist thinking you are constantly crusading against", that being against physical thinking is irrelevant to questions rergarding technology, but he didn't bother to reply. Most probably he undesrstood that he was wrong and doesn't want to admit it.
Well, if you really want to know, you advertise that you are a pretender, and an aphorism about teaching a pig to sing comes to mind.
I think the argument can be made that there is a physical aspect to them. What is not physical is insight, grasping the relations between ideas, and understanding meaning.
Wayfarer
Well, they consist of energy and mass, but not of the kind we know in Physics. Yet, this energy and mass can be detected with special devices, e.g. polygraphs. (I have used such a device myself extensively. Not a polygraph.)
This detection is possibe because thoughts affect the body, as I already said. And in this way, we can have indications about the kind of thoughts the subject has --from very "light" to quite "heavy", their regular or irregular flow, their abrupt changes, etc.-- but not of course of their content.
Scientology?
Alkis PiskasNovember 22, 2023 at 15:04#8553450 likes
Reply to wonderer1
I thought that you understood that you are wrong in your criticism and why, but you didn't. My mistake.
In fact, the opposite happened. You came back with another criticism, to me this time.
Well, it seems that critisicm with personal offense is your cup of tea ...
I didn't read details ... Is ChatGPT's response any good?
I think so. I've had many insightful interactions over the last twelve months - on Kant, Schopenhuaer, C S Pierce, organism v mechanism, whether the cosmological anthropic argument is a transcendental argument, the nature of the wave-function in quantum physics....the list goes on. Of course you never should take any of it on face value, necessarily, but it's amazingly helpful.
We're discussing here a system which is trained by recognising responses and inferring similarities between them and further responses, and which by so doing can re-construct images from neural activity. But there are much more subtle elements of mental operations which I don't think could be susceptible to such a representation - basic ideas, like 'the same as', or 'greater than'. Of course even simple calculators can recognise such relationships between numbers, but the general idea, which a human will understand without any particular difficulty, would be impossible to represent pictorially - so how could be be captured by those means? And the mind is constantly using those comparisons and judgements in its activities.
We're discussing here a system which is trained by recognising responses and inferring similarities between them and further responses, and which by so doing can re-construct images from neural activity. But there are much more subtle elements of mental operations which I don't think could be susceptible to such a representation - basic ideas, like 'the same as', or 'greater than'. Of course even simple calculators can recognise such relationships between numbers, but the general idea, which a human will understand without any particular difficulty, would be impossible to represent pictorially - so how could be be captured by those means? And the mind is constantly using those comparisons and judgements in its activities.
I certainly agree that there are a lot of limitations to what can be learned with the current state of the art. MEG (the technology used by Meta) has much better temporal resolution than fMRI, and in some respects, better spatial resolution than EEG, but still has a lot of limitations in its ability to capture the details of what is going on in our brains.
Furthermore, the results described in the video were a function of what data about brain activity could be correlated with a limited amount of linguistic thought over a fifteen hour period. Absolutely there are subtleties to our thought that aren't captured in such a process. I don't see "greater than" as particularly problematic for such technology though, since it is easily linguistically expressible. It would depend on whether and how the topic of "greater than" came up while gathering the AI training data.
Certainly, there is a lot more going on in my mind than I can put into words, and I assume that is true for all of us. I wouldn't expect such a technological process to 'know' my subjective experience in detail. Still, for someone with Broca's aphasia, this sort of technology could be life changing if it can be made suitably portable.
Still, for someone with Broca's aphasia, this sort of technology could be life changing if it can be made suitably portable.
:100: That's pretty well what the Cold Fusion video stressed also. But it has implications for philosophy of mind, yes? It shows that the ability to infer images from brain activity doesn't really amount to 'mind-reading' (impressive though it might be.)
It shows that the ability to infer images from brain activity doesn't really amount to 'mind-reading' (impressive though it might be.)
I don't see a good reason to look at it in a binary way. It makes sense to me to see it as an impressive but limited degree of mind reading, just as it involves an impressive but limited degree of brain reading.
Alkis PiskasNovember 23, 2023 at 08:37#8555770 likes
Is ChatGPT's response any good?
Alkis Piskas
I've had many insightful interactions over the last twelve months ...
I meant about the particular chat ("Explanatory Gap in Consciousness") but I didn't phrase it correctly.
Well, a while ago I asked ChatGPT 3.5: "What do you know about Meta's research on mind-reading using AI and dMRI?". It responded that its last update was in January 2022. I knew about this issue, but I wanted to see if it can make some research on the subject. Maybe version 4 could, but I don't have access to it. However I then asked Bing AI the same exact question, and I was impressed. It's response:
"According to my search results, Meta has been involved in several research projects related to mind-reading using AI and MRI technology. One of the recent breakthroughs in this field is the development of an AI system that can decode visual representations in the brain and reconstruct how images are perceived and processed in our minds. The researchers claim that the AI system can capture thousands of brain activity measurements per second and reconstruct the contents of our thoughts. Another research project involves the use of deep learning algorithms to recreate mental imagery from brain scans. The researchers trained a deep learning algorithm on 63,000 prior MEG results from four patients across 12 sessions, in which the patients saw 22,448 unique images, and 200 repeated images from that original pool. However, I could not find any information about Metas research on mind-reading using AI and dMRI."
How about that?
BTW, I generally consider Bing AI better that ChatGPT 3.5 from many aspects, but esp. because it is much less verbose. It also seems to be more "clever", e.g. it gives much shorter and elegant solutions to Math problems.
Certainly. And this is true I believe for everything you read in the Web. But one can always cross-check, verify information using reliable and trustable sources.
However I then asked Bing AI the same exact question
that's because BingAI is connected to the Internet, and ChatGPT is not. I've tried Bing, and also Bard - actually in my current work contract we're assigned Office365 with the bingbot built in, but it's exceedingly annoying, and crammed into a narrow vertical strip on the side of the browser. And generally the whole Microsoft Edge/Office 365 environment is about as crowded as a Tokyo streetscape. Meanwhile I asked Bard to help out with some investment calculations the other day, and it got them hilariously wrong. So for now I'm a ChatGPT4 fan (yes, I pay the money ;-) ).
Alkis PiskasNovember 23, 2023 at 09:48#8555800 likes
Comments (60)
Unfortunately. What some people forget. Is just how the first computer was a massive, costly piece of machinery that took up the entire wall of a decent sized room. We now have them we can wear on our wrists for $50.
Secret drones the size of a housefly exist. Only a matter of time before they hit the market and become affordable any college kid can get hold of.
So what happens, if the current pattern continues? Dare you ask? You could potentially offer to give someone a ride and have the roof or seat of your car equipped with non-contact "brain sensors" of this type and bring up in conversation, "Man someone figured out my bank pin. I used all 4's. I was so dumb. Hey. Whatever your bank pin is... make sure it's good." Upon triggering someone manually by such a phrase it will likely come up in their head, unless you're, what is basically crazy, and start thinking random numbers as quickly and feverishly as possible.
Scary direction indeed. What does this mean for the future of humanity? One could only imagine.
It is worth noting the 15 hours that subjects spent in a scanner before the AI that was used had sufficient training data on the individual to be able to decode that individual's thoughts. Without the AI having been trained to form correct associations, between a specific individual's brain activity and what the individual was thinking about, the system can't decode thoughts.
Well that's somewhat pleasing and comforting to hear. However, like I said. The first million dollar computer that took years of research and took up the size of a room, we now wear on our wrists for little more than the cost of a large pizza. Took 50 years to make that progress. And since then, further progress seems to come so quickly it has become superfluous. So, you see the concern and validity of my argument I'm sure.
Sure, just pointing out that we don't need tinfoil hats just yet. :wink:
:up: Important point. I hadn't picked up the specificity on first listening.
I read not long ago that there is more computing power in a singing christmas card than existed in the world in 1946.
On a side note, both the founders of OpenAI, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, were both sacked by the board, out of the blue, last Friday. It seems to have taken everyone by surprise (gift link to NY Times analysis.) The conflict inside OpenAI also seems to be, at least in part, about the dangers of commercialisation.
As to the philosophical implications, they are indeed fascinating, but I want to resist the inevitable suggestion that we've 'figured out how the mind operates'. As noted already, the system requires extensive sychronisation with a specific subject in order to be effective. (I also picked up a way in which the predictive power of the algorithm to complete sentences is modelled on Shannon's theory.) And last but not least, the system is imbued with whatever power it has by scientific expertise and insights.
The breakthrough part is to do with the use of AI to do the decoding, but the ability to decode has been around for a while now. I remember reading what seems like ages ago about some Japanese scientists that were able to record dream imagery using fMRI.
About Sam Altman getting fired, i wonder if it has anything to do with government and national security, since AI is considered to be as, or more dangerous than nuclear weapons. If OpenAI has achieved AGI or is very close to it then the government might feel the need to step in to take control of the situation in a secretive way. Imagine the government allowing corporations to develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to. I heard that Joe Biden recently saw the last Mission Impossible movie and got spooked by the film's AI villain, along with the recent AI safety executive order he put out seems like a non-zero probability.
There probably is a limit to how far from a person's skull the sensors can be, no matter how good they are. For example, past a certain point, radio signals from Earth become unextractable, no matter how good a radio telescope. I think that no matter how advanced the tech gets, the sensors will have to be close to the head, and there will have to be at least a couple of them.
Also, while it's true we have computers on our wrists, I don't think we're ever going to have quantum computers on our wrists, or table-top gravitational wave detectors. Some things are really hard to miniaturize, and I'm betting this is one of them.
As for quantum computers, thats another matter altogether, and one Im highly sceptical about, but thats for another thread.
Yeah, for now at least, you need a specially shielded room to do MEG.
I suspect carrying a cellphone around might be sufficient, (or could be made sufficient). However for those who prefer a lower tech solution, that link I posted says:
So layered Mu-metal and aluminum would do the job. Mu-metal is nice and shiny and corrosion resistant, so you could be stylin.
Quite impressive as a technology. Yet, I would expect at least one example of how it really works. That is, a subject thinking of something --just an image, as the apple we've seen-- and the FMRI system recognizing and naming or reproducing that image. Well, I saw nothing of the sort.
Transferring my thoughts to a machine and seeing them on a screen was always one of my wildest dreams. Reality though steps always in and stops me.
Thoughts are not physical in nature. The brain only receives signals of how the person reacts to his thoughts, i.e. the effect these thoughts have on the body. (I could explain how this works, but not here of course.)
The brain is only a stimulus-response mechanism. It receives and sends signals. That's all. Information may be stored in tissues or neurons, but always as signals. Now just imagine what a task would be to identify those signals among billions and name them, connect them as "words" and then "phrases" and so on. It would be as if we try to assemble millions of pixels in order to form an image we don't even know what it is about. And we would have to do that in a total darkness. It's not like in jigsaw puzzles, where we are given the image we are trying to solve and in plain light.
Watch again. There is a sequence about exactly that at around 12:14 with about 3-4 examples (cat, train, surfer, etc.)
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I think the argument can be made that there is a physical aspect to them. What is not physical is insight, grasping the relations between ideas, and understanding meaning.
Yes, I saw that. It is what AI art-generators do based on text prompts. This must be from DALL.E 3, one of the best ones. (I have not personally tried with it but I have seen samples.) And since this can be done from text, it must also be done from speech, using a speech-to-text converter. Indeed, at some point I saw a subject moving his mouth, like murmuring or something.
Anyway, it is quite impressive as I said.
BTW, I just googled < project thoughts on screen > and got ... 396,000,000 results. (Of course these numbers are never exact, but they are quite indicative of the popularity od a subject.) I read a couple of them and these kind of projects show only a possibility. As far as fMRI esp. is conceened, it is only a possibility in the future. So, let's see what the future has reserved for us ... :smile:
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, they consist of energy and mass, but not of the kind we know in Physics. Yet, this energy and mass can be detected with special devices, e.g. polygraphs. (I have used such a device myself extensively. Not a polygraph.)
This detection is possibe because thoughts affect the body, as I already said. And in this way, we can have indications about the kind of thoughts the subject has --from very "light" to quite "heavy", their regular or irregular flow, their abrupt changes, etc.-- but not of course of their content.
You don't understand it, then. The rendered images were not from text prompts, they were from brain scans. There was no other input than a subject with electrodes attached to their cranium.
I didn't say that they use AI art-generators, neither that the fMRI gets text prompts, for godssake.
I said that the produced images look like those produced by AI art-generators based on text prompts. Huge difference.
But this is of secondary importance. You chose to stick on that instead of what I said it is of most importance.
Well, whatever. Just keep believing that fMRI can read thoughts ...
Nope. Brainwaves. I know, hard to believe, but there it is.
From https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/brain-waves:
************************************************************************************************************
Brain waves are oscillating electrical voltages in the brain measuring just a few millionths of a volt. There are five widely recognized brain waves, and the main frequencies of human EEG waves are listed in Table 2.1 along with their characteristics.
Table 2.1. Characteristics of the Five Basic Brain Waves
************************************************************************************************************
Do you still believe that brain waves can be used to detect the content of thoughts, like images?
Incidentally the channel, Cold Fusion TV, produces generally pretty good quality mini-documentaries on a variety of tech and business products.
That's better!
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't doubt. But you also have to look at what a lot of other sources have to say on the subject. (Again, 396,000,000 Google results!)
If some technology were even just close to being able to identify images from thoughts, such a thing would have revolutionized science --esp. psychiatry and psychology-- and the whole planet would have heard about it.
https://www.ft.com/content/dd9ba2f6-f509-42f0-8e97-4271c7b84ded
Wayfarer, I feel somwhat bad because in some way I run against your enthusiam regarding this indeed impressive video. Unfortunately, it happens that I know well a few things that make mind-reading impossible on a content basis. But certainly I cannot exclude that it can happen in one way or another in the future. It all depends on the means one is using. And there are a lot of alternative methods in achieving such a goal.
As for Meta's technology and this video, I did a small research on the subject "Mind Reading using fMRI" (w/o quotes) restricting the period to "Last month" Meta's experiments appeared in only two articles in the first 60. (I didn't read their content.) And when I restricted the period to "Last week" --which just covers the date of the video, which was posted 1-2 days ago-- no such articles appeared. (You can verify that yourself.)
Don't you find that a little strange?
I really wish to be proved wrong and that Meta's or other technology to make my dream come true and your topic to be proved prophetic!
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting Alkis Piskas
The issue isnt whether machines can read thought via detecting brain waves, but what kind of thinking is involved.
We know that implanted electodes can detect neural
signals in limbs and translate them into controllable prosthetics. This is a primitive form of reading neural waves. One could imagine teaching someone with locked-in syndrome morse-code, and implanting electrodes strategically in a part of the brain whose activity is specifically and narrowly correlated with thinking of the pattern of dots and dashes. In this way one could decipher language before it is spoken.
At the other end of the spectrum are devices
that read the combined output of massive numbers of neurons deep in the neocortex when persons are thinking in various ways. This kind of conceptual thought, which has not yet been processed by the person into discrete words symbols, tends to be what we think of interns of mind reading, but no device has yet been able to decipher these highly complex patterns of neural firing. It sounds to me what the fMRI in the video is doing is targeting areas of the brain somewhere between the morse code example and pre-verbal thought. Once one has in mind a robustly formed verbal concept or image, then the neural measuring equipment can locate consistent neural patterns that correspond to words that are being finalized by the brain in preparation for communication via speech or gesture.
Right.
Excellent description of how the brain works regarding thoughts/thinking and what possibilities exist for mind-reading. :up:
(It fills gaps in my knowledge of the subject, which I never felt the need to fill in myself. :smile:)
No need to!
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Not so much enthusiasm as curiosity.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It's cutting edge. All of those reports have only just begun to circulate, but as I said, I have reason to believe that Cold Fusion TV is a reliable source. I've watched many of their documentaries on other aspects of technology. I know what they're saying seems incredible but they're claiming to be able to generate images based on pictures that subjects are viewing with no other prompts.
Meanwhile the Sam Altman story keeps getting more far-out. Altman and Brockman have been hired by Microsoft, and practically the whole staff of OpenAI have threatened to resign and join him. It's like an episode of Billions or Succession!
I had no idea about that story. I just got informed about it. Interesting story indeed.
BTW, I read that Microsoft want both Altman and Brockman back to OpenAI. They say that they are more important than the BofD. I don't know about the truth of all that, neither the reason why Altman was dismissed. Neither why Brockman resigned from president. Well, your "Sam Altman story" is still running and we'll read new episodes soon. :smile:
What are your thoughts, on the fact that these things are outcomes of the same physicalist thinking that you are constantly crusading against?
:up:
I wish I could feel the same about the times we are living in ...
(As far as AI is concerned, I'm in AI as a programmer since 2018 --5.5 years before ChatGPT went public-- so I saw it initially as just an impressive programming devolopment. Now I'm building my own chatbot, just a toy of course compared to ChatGPT, but still the principles and thinking behind both are the same. So, unfortunately I cannot be impressed by AI as most people on the planet are.)
I'm also against --and even condemn-- physicalism as a single and absolute worldview, and esp. when it tries to get involved in and interpret things of a non physical nature. But I certainly cannot not appreciate, acknowledge and benefit from AI and thousands of other technologies, the existence of which is owed to Science and its "physicalist thinking".
Physicality and non physicality can coexist in harmony.
That science is capable of amazing achievements and discoveries, but science is also a human endeavour. The mistake of physicalism is to treat humans as objects and to forget (or even claim to eliminate :lol: ) the subject to whom the objective domain occurs.
Quoting Arthur Schopenhauer, World as Will and Idea
Is that so? I'm impressed! I've never learned to program, although I do work in information technology (as a technical writer). I was immediately won over by ChatGPT the day it came out and often bounce ideas off it (see for instance this and this.) I envision the day when it's fully integrated with voice technologies and you can simply ask questions, get advice and use it for all kinds of day-to-day purposes.
You say this sort of thing a lot, but then the effectiveness of physicalist thought about minds is shown in your OP.
"Prove" is an ureasonable standard. We should look at where the evidence points though.
I'm of the view that mathematics, for example, is fundamental to the success of science but that number is not material existent. The imagination incorporates and relies on factors which are not materially real but which can be used to great effect in the physical domain. Hence the interminable arguments about Platonism in mathematics (and I'm with the platonists in that regard).
Notice that sentence of Schopenhauer's:
Quoting Arthur Schopenhauer, World as Will and Idea
The point about materialism is precisely that it regards some material existent as being ultimately real. But even there, the whole current model of physics is that - a mathematical model. So we consistently assign reality to the objective domain, as if its reality is self-evident at least in principle, without taking into account the role of the mind in constructing what we take to be independently real. You will notice that there has been no such thing as a truly existent fundamental particle ever discovered, the nearer you get to them, the more ambiguous their nature becomes. Nowadays materialism usually just amounts to appeal to the scientific method, never mind all the paradoxes and conundrums it has thrown up.
Quoting Wayfarer
The 1946 computers couldn't sing and the chips in singing Christmas cards can't calculate the best trajectory for a heavy shell fired at a target 3 miles away with a 10 mph headwind, etc. Different machines, different functions,
Mark Zuckerberg must be hooked up to these machines to extract whatever he has in mind for our brains.
There are too many superlatives being batted around about AI, mind reading, etc. Clearly the Tech Bros have fallen in love. (See "Sorcerer's Apprentice"; the Fantasia version will do if nothing else is available.).
These technologies are likely to generate a lot of power and money for those who can wield them. In saying that, I am estimating that it has real potential.
Quoting BC
I might have meant 1945....ENIAC wasn't built until 46....
I wonder why don't advanced chatbots --like ChatGPT and Bing-- also use voice interaction. Speech to text and text to speech are technologies that exist since many years ago ...
I checked the links you mentioned. They both lead to https://chat.openai.com. What's special about it? It's the standard ChatGPT interface.
BTW, I explained to @wonderer1, who argued against you, by saying "these things are outcomes of the same physicalist thinking you are constantly crusading against", that being against physical thinking is irrelevant to questions rergarding technology, but he didn't bother to reply. Most probably he undesrstood that he was wrong and doesn't want to admit it. (I forgot to add a mention link to you. See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/855078.)
I thought I had created links to specific interactions. I didnt realize you would need to log in to review them, sorry. Ill look into that, its a definite down-mark if that is so.
I agree with your point about the fact that this technology does not support physicalism. It is able to infer images on the basis of huge amounts of processing power and computer memory. I wonder how it could interpret a simple idea such as greater than?
https://chat.openai.com/share/967940e0-886c-4fd6-b919-ebe16a002d7e
I clicked on it in a virgin browser window on my desktop machine, it opens. On iPhone it seems to go to OpenAI login. Thanks.
You most probably did. But I had to log in with your details to see them. Using my own login details I just saw my own ChatGPT content.
Quoting Wayfarer
That is, how could it use logic, in general. I wonder about that, too. Maybe this is the task of the AI system that will be used. I can't say. I lack a lot information on both sides: Available or potentially available AI methods and esp. the brain.
Quoting Wayfarer
I did. I was landed on "Explanatory Gap in Consciousness". I didn't know that one can share ChatGPT chats. I will read all that and come back to you later ...
Wow! I'm stunned. What a chat! I had no idea ... never heard about such a kind of chat with ChatGPT. I didn't even try myself. The largest prompts I have used are simple math problems and their solutions ...
I didn't read details ... Is ChatGPT's response any good?
Well, if you really want to know, you advertise that you are a pretender, and an aphorism about teaching a pig to sing comes to mind.
For example:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Scientology?
I thought that you understood that you are wrong in your criticism and why, but you didn't. My mistake.
In fact, the opposite happened. You came back with another criticism, to me this time.
Well, it seems that critisicm with personal offense is your cup of tea ...
I think so. I've had many insightful interactions over the last twelve months - on Kant, Schopenhuaer, C S Pierce, organism v mechanism, whether the cosmological anthropic argument is a transcendental argument, the nature of the wave-function in quantum physics....the list goes on. Of course you never should take any of it on face value, necessarily, but it's amazingly helpful.
Quoting wonderer1
We're discussing here a system which is trained by recognising responses and inferring similarities between them and further responses, and which by so doing can re-construct images from neural activity. But there are much more subtle elements of mental operations which I don't think could be susceptible to such a representation - basic ideas, like 'the same as', or 'greater than'. Of course even simple calculators can recognise such relationships between numbers, but the general idea, which a human will understand without any particular difficulty, would be impossible to represent pictorially - so how could be be captured by those means? And the mind is constantly using those comparisons and judgements in its activities.
I certainly agree that there are a lot of limitations to what can be learned with the current state of the art. MEG (the technology used by Meta) has much better temporal resolution than fMRI, and in some respects, better spatial resolution than EEG, but still has a lot of limitations in its ability to capture the details of what is going on in our brains.
Furthermore, the results described in the video were a function of what data about brain activity could be correlated with a limited amount of linguistic thought over a fifteen hour period. Absolutely there are subtleties to our thought that aren't captured in such a process. I don't see "greater than" as particularly problematic for such technology though, since it is easily linguistically expressible. It would depend on whether and how the topic of "greater than" came up while gathering the AI training data.
Certainly, there is a lot more going on in my mind than I can put into words, and I assume that is true for all of us. I wouldn't expect such a technological process to 'know' my subjective experience in detail. Still, for someone with Broca's aphasia, this sort of technology could be life changing if it can be made suitably portable.
:100: That's pretty well what the Cold Fusion video stressed also. But it has implications for philosophy of mind, yes? It shows that the ability to infer images from brain activity doesn't really amount to 'mind-reading' (impressive though it might be.)
I don't see a good reason to look at it in a binary way. It makes sense to me to see it as an impressive but limited degree of mind reading, just as it involves an impressive but limited degree of brain reading.
I meant about the particular chat ("Explanatory Gap in Consciousness") but I didn't phrase it correctly.
Well, a while ago I asked ChatGPT 3.5: "What do you know about Meta's research on mind-reading using AI and dMRI?". It responded that its last update was in January 2022. I knew about this issue, but I wanted to see if it can make some research on the subject. Maybe version 4 could, but I don't have access to it. However I then asked Bing AI the same exact question, and I was impressed. It's response:
"According to my search results, Meta has been involved in several research projects related to mind-reading using AI and MRI technology. One of the recent breakthroughs in this field is the development of an AI system that can decode visual representations in the brain and reconstruct how images are perceived and processed in our minds. The researchers claim that the AI system can capture thousands of brain activity measurements per second and reconstruct the contents of our thoughts. Another research project involves the use of deep learning algorithms to recreate mental imagery from brain scans. The researchers trained a deep learning algorithm on 63,000 prior MEG results from four patients across 12 sessions, in which the patients saw 22,448 unique images, and 200 repeated images from that original pool. However, I could not find any information about Metas research on mind-reading using AI and dMRI."
How about that?
BTW, I generally consider Bing AI better that ChatGPT 3.5 from many aspects, but esp. because it is much less verbose. It also seems to be more "clever", e.g. it gives much shorter and elegant solutions to Math problems.
Quoting Wayfarer
Certainly. And this is true I believe for everything you read in the Web. But one can always cross-check, verify information using reliable and trustable sources.
that's because BingAI is connected to the Internet, and ChatGPT is not. I've tried Bing, and also Bard - actually in my current work contract we're assigned Office365 with the bingbot built in, but it's exceedingly annoying, and crammed into a narrow vertical strip on the side of the browser. And generally the whole Microsoft Edge/Office 365 environment is about as crowded as a Tokyo streetscape. Meanwhile I asked Bard to help out with some investment calculations the other day, and it got them hilariously wrong. So for now I'm a ChatGPT4 fan (yes, I pay the money ;-) ).
I believe you 100%. Bard is a joke. At least its current version. (Strange thing for Google ...)
Quoting Wayfarer
Why don't you use https://www.bing.com/search?form=MY0291&OCID=MY0291&q=Bing+AI&showconv=1?
Quoting Wayfarer
I have in mind to do that myself too since quite long ago, but I keep it in some drawer, until I find a real use for it. :smile: