AI & Humanoids

Elon Musk's superhuman vision system looks terrible in simulations

Elon Musk's superhuman vision system looks terrible in simulations
New science calls into doubt Musk's claims of Blindsight's potential capabilities
New science calls into doubt Musk's claims of Blindsight's potential capabilities
View 3 Images
New science calls into doubt Musk's claims of Blindsight's potential capabilities
1/3
New science calls into doubt Musk's claims of Blindsight's potential capabilities
Electrodes firing in response to 'letter' visual stimuli. It shows the patient-reported phosphene maps of stimulated electrodes (bold circles) and the direction of the temporal sequence of stimulation (arrow)
2/3
Electrodes firing in response to 'letter' visual stimuli. It shows the patient-reported phosphene maps of stimulated electrodes (bold circles) and the direction of the temporal sequence of stimulation (arrow)

The models of electrode arrays and how the cat video would be processed in the visual cortex
3/3
The models of electrode arrays and how the cat video would be processed in the visual cortex
View gallery - 3 images

Elon Musk's ambitious eye implants that "ultimately may exceed normal human vision" are unlikely to reach this lofty benchmark, according to scientists who have used 'virtual patients' to expose the limitations of this innovative technology. Because even the greatest engineering is no match for human neurophysiology in restoring sight.

Back in March, Musk used his X platform to announce the progress that was being made in developing Blindsight, a cortical implant that aims to not just restore vision but provide 'high-resolution' sight.

"Blindsight is the next product after Telepathy," he posted. "I should mention that the Blindsight implant is already working in monkeys. Resolution will be low at first, like early Nintendo graphics, but ultimately may exceed normal human vision. (Also, no monkey has died or been seriously injured by a Neuralink device!)"

Musk has said Blindsight will enable people who have no eyesight, or who have lost their eyes, to be able to 'see' by targeting how the brain processes optical information. To do this, millions of minute electrodes would be implanted in the visual cortex, the area at the rear of the brain that is largely responsible for processing and interpreting visual information from the eyes.

But University of Washington (UW) researchers say there are fundamental flaws in the design of cortical implants like Blindsight, which underestimate the complexities of human eye-brain communication, and they've used detailed computational modeling simulations – which they call virtual patients – to demonstrate that implants are unlikely to ever "exceed" normal vision.

And it all comes down to the limitations of these electrodes and their ability to stimulate the nerve cells (neurons) needed to recreate vision artificially. It's a complex process that relies on the creation of a multitude of intricate neural codes that are needed to properly get visual information properly processed by the brain.

The models of electrode arrays and how the cat video would be processed in the visual cortex
The models of electrode arrays and how the cat video would be processed in the visual cortex

“Even to get to typical human vision, you would not only have to align an electrode to each cell in the visual cortex, but you’d also have to stimulate it with the appropriate code,” said the study's lead author Ione Fine, a professor of psychology at UW. “That is incredibly complicated because each individual cell has its own code. You can’t stimulate 44,000 cells in a blind person and say, ‘Draw what you see when I stimulate this cell.’ It would literally take years to map out every single cell.”

On paper, 45,000 electrodes can be somewhat clumsily equated to 45,000 pixels, like that of a TV or computer screen – so the more electrodes, the sharper and more detailed the image is meant to be. However, the researchers say each neuron relays information about a small "receptive field", and these receptive fields overlap with other neurons and their receptive fields. So that single small spot of light coming into the eye actually stimulates a host of interconnected neurons that help process the information. As such, there's a huge challenge in getting any number of electrodes to recreate the work of thousands of neurons involved in this complex function.

Electrodes firing in response to 'letter' visual stimuli. It shows the patient-reported phosphene maps of stimulated electrodes (bold circles) and the direction of the temporal sequence of stimulation (arrow)
Electrodes firing in response to 'letter' visual stimuli. It shows the patient-reported phosphene maps of stimulated electrodes (bold circles) and the direction of the temporal sequence of stimulation (arrow)

“Engineers often think of electrodes as producing pixels,” Fine said, “but that is simply not how biology works. We hope that our simulations based on a simple model of the visual system can give insight into how these implants are going to perform. These simulations are very different from the intuition an engineer might have if they are thinking in terms of a pixel on a computer screen.”

To demonstrate this, the researchers designed a range of simulations, including a movie of a cat as seen at 45,000 pixels compared to what it would look like for a patient with 45,000 electrodes in their visual cortex. The implant models were designed by using data gathered from existing studies on cortical implants much like the one Blindsight has in mind. While the electrodes were able to interpret some sort of visual picture, the cat was extremely blurry and difficult to recognize beyond shape.

In these videos, the researchers simulated two different arrays of electrode configurations to demonstrate how the cat video would be perceived by someone with cortical implants.

Simulations with 399-590 electrodes
Simulations with 1884-2540 electrodes

The researchers noted that while this would be an improvement for someone with no sight at all, they caution that this approach to restoring vision may never reach the kind of benchmark Musk believes it will.

“Somebody might one day have a conceptual breakthrough that gives us that Rosetta Stone,” Fine said. “It’s also possible that there can be some plasticity where people can learn to make better use of an incorrect code. But my own research and that of others shows that there’s currently no evidence that people have massive abilities to adapt to an incorrect code.”

Without being able to replicate the neural codes required, no amount of engineering will elevate this technology to anything even close to adequate human sight. And the researchers believe that this is something that should be front of mind when assessing the feasibility of biotech like Blindsight.

“Many people become blind late in life,” Fine said. “When you’re 70 years old, learning the new skills required to thrive as a blind individual is very difficult. There are high rates of depression. There can be desperation to regain sight. Blindness doesn’t make people vulnerable, but becoming blind late in life can make some people vulnerable. So, when Elon Musk says things like, ‘This is going to better than human vision,’ that is a dangerous thing to say.”

The research was published in the journal Nature.

Source: University of Washington

View gallery - 3 images
10 comments
10 comments
Techutante
Wouldn't be the first time for the king of hyperbole...
martinwinlow
Are we talking about the same 'King' that has 'single-handedly' broken the world's road transport systems' dependance on fossil fuels after 100 years of it's profligate and utterly cynical exploitation by mega-corporations despite the blindingly (or should that be chokingly) obvious deleterious effects on the environment, both locally and globally?
Or the same individual who transformed on-line banking and permitted ordinary folk's money to no longer be tied to one of the few High Street banks with their grossly excessive charges, colossal ineptitude and positively backward attitude towards fraud?
Or the same person that has totally up-ended the space business by under-cutting the 'getting stuff into space' competition by a factor of 10?
Or the same chap that has brought autonomous vehicles to the very brink of changing our entire civilisation forever (hopefully overall in a good way)?
Or the same man who has already had fantastic success with allowing tetraplegics to effectively have full control of a computer simply by thinking?
And done all this in a mere 20 years?
Seriously, 'Techutante' wake up!
martinwinlow
Personally, I'm a bit more likely to believe Musk, given his success already in this area, than a bunch of lofty academics!
Dee Simpson
Elon is not a friend of democracy. But these guys criticizing the vision work.....hey, it's the early stages!! Remember the early stages of robots? Pretty primitive. Now look. So many haters of Elon look for ways to criticize the work. This will be something in a handful of years. I own Tesla stock as it is a tech company, not a car company.
Christian
the guy has made sure made online payments a normal thing, oversaw the making of self-landing reusable rockets and self driving cars a thing of reality, and built an infrastructure that has allowed electric cars to even be considered as practical. this is an awesome start for new vision implants. very cool. given the progress of every other visual technology and the shrinking of size and increasing power of electronics and computers, full and enhanced vision is definitely doable with continued refinement and study.
Karmudjun
Nice article on the PT Barnum of the 21st century. It seems that there are some very pro and some very con opinions being written - and I think Elon is handicapped by his life on the spectrum. Not that he or his supporters would say so. But this article talks about a technology for giving blind people sight with a non-biological eye implanted with a "not-ready-for-prime-time" neurolink. It is just like the promised "self-driving cars" which sometimes do - but sometimes fail. Clearly Blindsight is ready for test subjects, not for retail with promises being met, with hyperbole being exceeded in real time. No offense martinwinlow.
Smokey_Bear
Karmudjun - I think if you had no vision, crappy vision, would sounds amazing.
People always whine about Musk not doing what he says. When 95% of the time, he does what he says he'll do, it just takes longer. He's very optimistic, but creating something that doesn't exist, into a real product, is not something you can accurately project on a diagram.
His haters thought the Cybertruck was vaporware...they were wrong.
Now the big thing they harp on is FSD, but any rational person can clearly see it continues to get better, maybe true FSD will exist in 6 months, maybe 6 years, either way, Elon won't stop pushing forward, it will happen eventually.
Same for bots, they thought he was kidding a few years ago with a dancing guy, now they have some working in their factory.
Techutante
@Martin You're over crediting a man who literally bought all the companies doing most of those things and used existing technology that he didn't develop. Then moved all his businesses to Texas to pay less taxes, lower his child support payments, disinherited his trans daughter? Donated 45 million a month to the most anti-science presidential candidate in history? He didn't found Tesla, He didn't found Paypal. He didn't even write code for Paypal. He inherited millions of dollars from apartheid african slave mines. Also there's the crypto pump and dump scams he was involved in, NFT scams, The boring company, hyperloop, endangered species mass destruction in texas. His Auto pilot is worse than nearly every other competing company. Tesla is losing money nonstop on the Truck that "he designed" because it's basically unusable. By all means, hype him up. He's just a dude with money.
MCG
Actions speak louder than chair judges.
ljaques
+1 @martinwinslow some people are just haters. I looked at the graphics in the 3 pics and groaned, but once I saw the videos of the output, I could tell exactly what was going on in the picture. Once they remove the trash/noise from the picture (the 2/3 framework of the optics) it's clear as can be. And this is only the beginning.