I'm pretty skeptical of the common "brain machine interface". It probably requires surgery, and for what ? to make people smarter in a world with AI ?
No, i think the main motivation for a brain machine interface should be experience/emotion oriented, And there's a big question if people will take surgery for it, or would they suffice with an external device ?
One such modality is fmri neurofeedback - using fmri analysis to give detailed and accurate feedback of what happens inside your brain, so you could achieve better control of it, and your internal world.
How much better control ? well, there's some early research about treating depression/anxiety, etc. but the more interesting research is about letting people train themselves to reach(very rapidly, unlike years/decades as a monk) a state very similar to the buddhist enlightenment, where you are content and free of ego. Another type of training session has taught people to increase empathy. And i'm sure you could do a lot more, since fmri is relatively accurate and fine-grained.
This line of research is early, and very expensive to do, but the technology is drastically improving[1], and with it will research.
And once you have that, once you could potentially become internally satisfied and happy, why would you risk that with a brain surgery , in order to have somewhat better virtual reality ?
[1]mri's are expensive, but marie lou-jespen is working on a $100 mri helmet
https://www.maryloujepsen.com/resume?_escaped_fragment_=#! "Goal: Replace the functionality of MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) with a consumer electronics wearable using novel opto-electronics to achieve comparable resolution to MRI."
(Couldn't find anything else really; https://www.engadget.com/2016/05/05/oculus-exec-mary-lou-jep... "she will focus on "curing diseases with new display technology," by bringing MRI machines to every doctor' office in the world."; links a TEDxYouth talk but that doesn't talk about it.)
Unless you mean strong AI, which isn't anywhere close, I don't think this AI rush has much wider chances than the previous one, except for some narrow use cases.
I don't think so. I think AI is just one of those fads that come up every now and then, and then get abandoned for the next one.
I'm calling AI as in "actual working strong AI" or useful soft AI stuff as fad.
I'm calling "AI" as in the thing currently every VC/company is investing in and we see various helpers like Cortana and Siri based, the machine learning craze, on etc. Besides some obvious and fitting applications (like in self driving cars) it will go nowhere fast.
VR has already reached this stage, without making any large dent on the market in the first place even temporarily.
Note that this is the second time AI is promised and will get nowhere (the first was back in the 80s, with the "AI winter").
Still hoping to see some improvement but not holding my breath.
And there's nothing to Google.com more than a simple heuristic algorithm, which can be totally dumb to context and nuance.
(I've written my own, but I'm interested in others'.)