Probably not. To get input from the brain, you need to place a sensor near it. But this device doesn’t get inserted into the brain, it sits in the scalp.

There are plenty of non-invasive brain reading technologies though, like EEG and near-infrared spectroscopy. They’re just big and bulky with low resolution.

Edit: in the case of prosthetics, it depends on where the disconnect is. If the brain and spinal cord are intact and the issue is in the periphery, yes, you can read the signal far away from the brain (namely the spinal cord) and then work from there.

The motor cortex is located in about the same spot in everyone, to my knowledge - I don’t know of any reported exceptions. The pre-central gyrus. Within, motor neurons are organized in specific regions that control specific body parts. Again, I don’t know of any reported exceptions - my understanding is everyone’s motor cortex has the same organization. It’s known as the cortical homunculus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus#Motor_homunculus%3Fwprov=sfla1

So by reading output from a small group of neurons, yes, you could control a prosthetic limb. It’s been done a few times, actually! But, you typically need more precision than comes from an EEG electrode, so all the examples I can think of are using invasive electrodes.

In fact, the sensory system of the brain has a very similar organization - along the postcentral gyrus, and the same stereotyped organization within. If you could stimulate the correct region of the sensory cortex, you could create a prosthetic that allows you to feel.

There are some more technical limitations though - there’s different types of sensation (e.g., pain, temperature, proprioception (position in space), texture, etc.) that are controlled by different receptors in skin and have different wires connecting to the brain. You’d have to be very careful about what you stimulate. And, any implant that delivers electricity to the brain, with our current technology, has a limited lifespan due to the brain’s immune system rejecting the implant (this is the aspect I studied).

Oh, cool, more BCI. I published in this field.

My only concern is how tenable it would be to deploy a bunch of these sensors. EEGs get coverage of the entire brain (surface, not a lot of deep brain activity). Would anyone be willing to wear hundreds, if not thousands, of micro-needles in their scalp?

If it meant controlling a prosthetic, probably. But general commercial devices - probably not.

Standard? Not really. But there’s a tutorial here: http://github.com/miykael/3dprintyourbrain

Happy to answer some questions if you have issues

Interesting question. It depends. I linked Ev Fedorenko’s Interesting Brain Project at MIT up above, they’re doing a deep dive into questions like those.

Broadly speaking, if you’re born with these anatomical anomalies, you’ll be more or less normal. The article mentions the person in question had an IQ of 70, so that’s lower than normal, but not intellectually impaired.

But acquired Brain damage almost always leads to impediments. Strokes and repeated concussions, physical injury, etc.

The brain is “plastic” when you’re young, we like to say. That is, it’s pliable and can mold into whatever shape it needs to in order to adapt to your environment. That plasticity disappears once you get older. It’s how kids can learn language effortlessly - when you’re born, you have the most neurons and synapses you’ll ever have in your life. You’ll keep the same neurons (unless you have a degenerative disorder or kill them with drugs), make new synapses as you learn, but broadly speaking as you grow up you prune synapses that aren’t helpful.

This is also why kids can undergo massive resection surgeries (or in the olden days, severing of the corpus callosum) and grow up more or less normal.

In the US getting an MRI for “no reason” can be very expensive. Probably wouldn’t have been covered by insurance.

Ev Fedorenko has done some of the best research in brain science, in my opinion. There’s no better rabbit hole than her research!

$$$

Eh, college is hard and so was his sport. Sure, it’s not an exhaustive battery of testing but I’m confident to say he’s a normal dude.

That’s the short of it - but we passed all brain data to a university affiliated neurologist for review. We also allowed participants to take a copy of their brain data if they wanted. I’ve got a CD of my own brain kicking around somewhere, and I even helped a few people 3D print their brains.

But, anything that I said about the participants brain opened me up to liability. What if I said their brain looked OK and there was a tumor? Or vice versa? The University felt I could be sued, so we were trained to not speak about their brain.

Well it’s not quite water, it’s cerebrospinal fluid and it plays a lot of important roles in waste clearance, immune protection, protection from concussion, and more.

Nope, not related to any disease I’ve ever seen. The best guess i have is fetal alcohol syndrome but it isn’t a perfect match. It’s just weird knowing he has a very odd shaped brain. And there’s a lot of unknowns surrounding it.

What if he sees another doctor and they mention it to him? Would he be upset I didn’t say anything? What if it is linked to some disease and I didn’t tell him, and he gets sick?

What if it’s hereditary and his kid has it, does it explain the motor delays? The premature birth? The problems they have with him sleeping?

Just a lot of unknowns.

We’ve actually seen a handful of them in the community. MIT has an “Interesting Brain Project” http://news.mit.edu/2023/studies-of-unusual-brains-reveal-insights-brain-organization-function-0221.

If you’re born that way, odds are you’ll be more or less normal. It’s amazing to see how resilient the human brain is.

In fact, one woman in China was born without a cerebellum. She wasn’t exactly normal per se, but she was alive and more or less healthy. Even though the cerebellum is smaller by volume it has about the same number of neurons as the cerebrum. So she just had half a brain. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329861-900-woman-of-24-found-to-have-no-cerebellum-in-her-brain/

I ran a lot of MRIs for my PhD. I saw somewhere around 100-200 different brains. About 10% of them had abnormalities. Of all the technicians, scientists, and (non-clinical) doctors I spoke with, we all agreed this was a very high rate of discovery. All my friends graduated without seeing anything weird. My advisor liked to joke that I was cursed. Eventually I stopped inviting my friends to do my experiments because I didn’t want to deal with the risk of them having an abnormality - thanks to some combination of HIPAA and medical liability laws, I wasn’t allowed to say anything about it, even if asked point blank. I didn’t like that very much.

I made one exception, as a friend of mine came in for a study and I saw a golf ball sized cyst in his sinus. He had it surgically removed and he told me he stopped snoring the next day. It felt good to make a difference for him.

But, I saw one brain similar to the one documented here. It belongs to one of my close friends. It was harrowing. Entire left hemisphere was malformed, the ventricles were way too big and the cortex was way too thin. But the right side of his brain was underdeveloped, maybe the size of a tennis ball.

The weirdest part, he is 100% normal. In fact, he competed at a high level of college athletics. Normal Cognition, normal motor function, great sense of humor, and a very caring person. Now he has a great job, wife and kid, and we hang out often. But I can’t bring myself to say anything, and every time I see his son I wonder about his brain.

I kept a few recipes from a subscription I was gifted. Honestly, replacing the missing ingredients has been more fun than cooking the boxed meals.

To be fair, people were treating mummies like cheesesteak for a very long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy?wprov=sfla1

Personally, I don’t think the evidence has established an AI tutor is better than no tutor. Maybe for English, certainly not for Math, Science, History, Art, or any other subjects.

LLMs can be wrong - so can teachers, but I’d bet dollars to donuts the LLM is wrong more often.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re close to getting an AI music tutor. From a practical standpoint, a large language model can’t interpret music.

From an ethos standpoint, allowing AI to train a musician breaks my heart.

I’ll need the full peer-reviewed paper which, based on this article, is still pending? Until then, based on this blog post, here’s my thoughts as someone who’s education adjacent but scientifically trained.

Most critically, they do not state what the control arm was. Was it a passive control? If so, of course you’ll see benefits in a group engaged in AI tutoring compared to doing nothing at all. How does AI tutoring compare to human tutoring?

Also important, they were assessing three areas - English learning, Digital Skills, and AI Knowledge. Intuitively, I can see how a language model can help with English. I’m very, very skeptical of what they define as those last two domains of knowledge. I can think of what a standardized English test looks like, but I don’t know what they were assessing for the latter two domains. Are digital skills their computer or typing proficiency? Then obviously you’ll see a benefit after kids spend 6 weeks typing. And “AI Knowledge”??

ETA: They also show a figure of test scores across both groups. It appears to be a composite score across the three domains. How do we know this “AI Knowledge” or Digital Skills domain was not driving the effect?

ETA2: I need to see more evidence before I can support their headline claim of huge growth equal to two years of learning. Quote from article: “When we compared these results to a database of education interventions studied through randomized controlled trials in the developing world, our program outperformed 80% of them, including some of the most cost-effective strategies like structured pedagogy and teaching at the right level.” Did they compare the same domains of growth, ie English instruction to their English assessment? Or are they comparing “AI Knowledge” to some other domain of knowledge?

But, they show figures demonstrating improvement in scores testing these three areas, a correlation between tutoring sessions and test performance, and claim to see benefits in everyday academic performance. That’s encouraging. I want to see overall retention down the line - do students in the treatment arm show improved performance a year from now? At graduation? But I know this data will take time to collect.

Don’t sell yourself short. It’s a salty lump of fat.