Toggle light / dark theme

According to the World Health Organisation, up to a half-million people around the world suffer a spinal cord injury each year. Often caused by road traffic crashes, accidents or violence, the loss of motor control or paralysis significantly impacts quality of life and requires years of treatment and care. Spinal cord injury is also associated with lower rates of school enrollment and economic participation, and carries substantial individual and societal costs.

Current methods for spinal cord injury treatment involve cumbersome brain-machine interfaces, with many cables linking the patient and a computer to restore limited motor functions. Other methods to map , such as magnetoencephalography, require very large machinery and particularly low-temperature working conditions.

To improve the quality of life of those suffering a spinal cord injury, ByAxon is bringing together a consortium of researchers from across Europe (Spain, Italy, France and Germany) to devise a new generation of spinal cord treatments. The four-year project started in January 2017 and is seeking to create implants that restore sensory functions.

Read more

While the company is no doubt losing quality employees, Fossil is still committed to wearable tech.


Rumors about a Pixel Watch have abounded for years. Such a device would certainly make sense as Google attempts to prove the viability of its struggling wearable operating system, Wear OSeems the company is finally getting serious about the prospect. Today Fossil announced plans to sell its smartwatch IP to the software giant for $40 million.

Sounds like Google will be getting a nice head start here as well. The deal pertains to “a smartwatch technology currently under development” and involves the transfer of a number of Fossil employees to team Google.

“Wearables, built for wellness, simplicity, personalization and helpfulness, have the opportunity to improve lives by bringing users the information and insights they need quickly, at a glance,” Wear OS VP Stacey Burr said in a statement. “The addition of Fossil Group’s technology and team to Google demonstrates our commitment to the wearables industry by enabling a diverse portfolio of smartwatches and supporting the ever-evolving needs of the vitality-seeking, on-the-go consumer.”

Read more

This was the first part in an interview series with Scott Aaronson — this one is on quantum computing — other segments are on Existential Risk, consciousness (including Scott’s thoughts on IIT) and thoughts on whether the universe is discrete or continuous.


First part in an interview series with Scott Aaronson — this one is on quantum computing — future segments will be on Existential Risk, consciousness (including Scott’s thoughts on IIT) and thoughts on whether the universe is discrete or continuous.

See ‘Complexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments’
https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/quantumsupre.pdf

Bio : Scott Aaronson is a theoretical computer scientist and David J. Bruton Jr. Centennial Professor of Computer Science at the University of Texas at Austin. His primary areas of research are quantum computing and computational complexity theory.

He blogs at Shtetl-Optimized: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/

#quantumcomputing #physics #computing #quantumsupremacy

Many thanks for watching!

Consider supporting SciFuture by:
a) Subscribing to the SciFuture YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=TheRationalFuture

Read more

Interview with Scott Aaronson — covering whether quantum computers could have subjective experience, whether information is physical and what might be important for consciousness — he touches on classic philosophical conundrums and the observation that while people want to be thorough-going materialists, unlike traditional computers brain-states are not obviously copyable. Aaronson wrote about this his paper ‘The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine’ (found here https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159). Scott also critiques Tononi’s integrated information theory (IIT).


Scott discusses whether quantum computers could have subjective experience, whether information is physical and what might be important for consciousness — he touches on classic philosophical conundrums and the observation that while people want to be thorough-going materialists, unlike traditional computers brain-states are not obviously copyable. Aaronson wrote about this his paper ‘The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine’ (found here https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159). Scott also critiques Tononi’s integrated information theory (IIT).

Questions include:
- In “Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?” you speculate that a process has to ‘fully participate in the arrow of time’ to be conscious, and this points to decoherence. If pressed, how might you try to formalize this?

- In “Is ‘information is physical’ contentful?” you note that if a system crosses the Schwarzschild bound it collapses into a black hole. Do you think this could be used to put an upper bound on the ‘amount’ of consciousness in any given physical system?

- One of your core objections to IIT is that it produces blatantly counter-intuitive results. But to what degree should we expect intuition to be a guide for phenomenological experience in evolutionarily novel contexts? I.e., Eric Schwitzgebel notes “Common sense is incoherent in matters of metaphysics. There’s no way to develop an ambitious, broad-ranging, self- consistent metaphysical system without doing serious violence to common sense somewhere. It’s just impossible. Since common sense is an inconsistent system, you can’t respect it all. Every metaphysician will have to violate it somewhere.”

Many thanks to Mike Johnson for providing these questions!

Bio : Scott Aaronson is a theoretical computer scientist and David J. Bruton Jr. Centennial Professor of Computer Science at the University of Texas at Austin. His primary areas of research are quantum computing and computational complexity theory.

He blogs at Shtetl-Optimized: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/

Read more

Blockchain shows major potential to drive positive change across a wide range of industries. Like any disruptive technology, there are ethical considerations that must be identified, discussed, and mitigated as we adopt and apply this technology, so that we can maximize the positive benefits, and minimize the negative side effects.

Own Your Data

For decades we have sought the ability for data subjects to own and control their data. Sadly, with massive proliferation of centralized database silos and the sensitive personal information they contain, we have fallen far short of data subjects having access to, let alone owning or controlling their data. Blockchain has the potential to enable data subjects to access their data, review and amend it, see reports of who else has accessed it, give consent or opt-in / opt-out of data sharing, and even request they be forgotten and their information be deleted.

Monetize Your Data

Blockchain enables cryptocurrency. Think of blockchain as a platform, and a cryptocurrency as a particular application that can run on blockchain, along with many other applications such as those that can enable data subjects to control their data. Users can be rewarded with cryptocurrencies for opting into, or giving consent to collaborate and share their data. For example, a patient may opt into participation in a clinical trial, and in so doing make their data available for research within that clinical trial. This capability has the potential to provide a direct value feedback loop whereby data subjects can monetize their data. This is a huge leap forward from today where data subjects give up their data free, in many cases unaware, and organizations collecting it make highly profitable businesses out of monetizing data with nary a cent going back to the data subject. However, in enabling data subjects to own, control, and monetize their data guardrails must be put in place around this to ensure that data subjects are fully informed of not just monetization opportunities, but also how their data will be used, any risks, and their rights.

Disintermediation and Disruption

Historically collaboration across a group of organizations has required a central trusted intermediary in a “hub and spoke” architecture where the intermediary is at the center and mediates all interactions across the network. One can see examples of this across many industries. In financial services we have banks and banking networks. In healthcare we have clearinghouses and health information exchanges. In most industries we have supply chains where distributors are the hub connecting manufacturers and suppliers with dispensaries and retailers. Unfortunately, many intermediaries have abused their role and introduced excessive costs, delays, and single points of failure where if they are unavailable collaboration across the whole network is halted. To be clear, where physical goods flow, such as in supply chains, centralized hub and spoke architectures will endure. However, when it comes to the flow of digital goods, including any information, cryptocurrencies, crypto-tokens, or otherwise, blockchain has the potential to enable decentralized collaboration across a consortium of organizations in near real-time, and without the added cost, and delay of the intermediary. Since blockchain is decentralized, it eliminates the central single point of failure that makes hub and spoke architectures vulnerable to attacks on the availability of data or systems such as ransomware or DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service). However, with this disintermediation and disruption the common assertion is that many will lose their jobs. Actually, with blockchain there is a different role for an intermediary around training, system integration, support, governance, consensus building across the consortium, and so forth, so there is an opportunity for intermediaries of today to evolve, adapt to blockchain, and even leverage blockchain to their benefit.

Hyper-Efficiency and Job Loss

Today many common types data are maintained redundantly across silos. Think of the last time you changed your phone number or address and had to visit hundreds of websites to update it. Did you visit them all? Probably not (who has time), and so many of the copies of your data are old, inaccurate, etc. This system results in massive collective cost and causes major inefficiencies. Rather than maintain common data in one place,
and update it once as needed, and share it near real-time across the consortium of organizations that need it, the cost to maintain common data is multiplied by the number of organizations that have copies and maintain it independently. Further, inconsistencies in this data cause friction and additional cost in the system, and frustration. If your address is not updated mail goes to the wrong place, needs to be forwarded, or maybe you didn’t do forwarding and so you lose it and absorb whatever the impact. In healthcare if records are inconsistent across payers and providers, medical claims can bounce causing delays in payment and so forth. So blockchain having the potential to help solve this sounds good, right? Well, what about the millions of people whose job it is today to maintain redundant copies of information across these organizations and silos. In using blockchain to pave the way for secure, and hyper-efficient maintenance of common, shared data, we may inadvertently disrupt the jobs of millions of people doing mundane, redundant data maintenance today. This is not to say we should not move forward with blockchain and realize its benefits, but we should do so fully aware of the impacts and help those impacted proactively adjust, retrain and move onto more useful, interesting, and higher paying roles.

Environmental Impacts

Public blockchains such as bitcoin span untrusted networks, with untrusted participants, and so must use conservative consensus algorithms such as PoW (Proof of Work) which require mining. To be competitive in mining one must invest in massive amounts of hardware that use massive amounts of electric power. This is a considerable environmental and ethical concern. For public blockchains to be feasible going forward we must find new ways of enabling blockchain consensus in ways that do not require massive amounts of hardware or electric power. Key clarification: this challenge is associated with mining and public blockchains and the consensus algorithms they use, whereas private / consortium blockchains, which represent the vast majority of blockchains used in industries such as healthcare, don’t typically have mining, but rather validation of transactions and blocks which does not require any significant additional hardware or electricity. Therefore, while this is a challenge for public blockchain applications such as bitcoin, it is not an issue for private / consortium blockchains.

Anonymity, Cryptocurrencies, and Crime

Ransomware is enabled by anonymous payment methods such as bitcoin. An attacker can infect your system, encrypt your data, and demand payment in bitcoin, and you can pay them with nary an idea of who attacked you, nor the ability for you or law enforcement to identify them. While cryptocurrencies and crypto-tokens have incredible potential for good, they are in this respect a double edged sword since they also pave the way not only for ransomware attacks, but DDoS, any many other types of crime. On the other hand, blockchain has incredible potential to help mitigate many types of fraud related crime so blockchain and crime is a multi-faceted ethical consideration. For more on this see Blockchain as a tool for anti-fraud.

What other ethical considerations are you seeing with blockchain? I post regularly on blockchain, cybersecurity, privacy, compliance, AI, cloud, and healthcare on LinkedIn and Twitter, and welcome collaboration on these fast evolving fields. Reach out and connect to collaborate.

Related

  1. Blockchain CyberSecurity – What You Need to Know to Avoid a Breach
  2. 8 Opportunities to Advance AI in Healthcare Using Blockchain
  3. Food is Medicine – Will the first large scale production use of blockchain in healthcare be food supply chain?
  4. Blockchain as a Tool for Anti-Fraud
  5. Healthcare Blockchain Privacy
  6. Accelerating AI and ML in Healthcare Using Blockchain
  7. Blockchain in Healthcare: The Potential and Limitations
  8. Blockchain in Healthcare Webinar: Patient Privacy & Cybersecurity in DLT Architecture, Planning, & Adoption
  9. BlockRx Asks the Experts: David Houlding, Intel Health & Life Sciences
  10. Will Blockchains Deliver Healthcare Interoperability?
  11. Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies, Smart Contracts, Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning in Healthcare
  12. Healthcare Use Cases for Blockchain — 5 Key Factors for Success
  13. Healthcare Blockchain: What Goes On Chain Stays on Chain
  14. Healthcare Blockchain: Does Your Chain Have any Weak Links?
  15. Will Your Healthcare Blockchain be Available When you Need It?

https://www.laserfocusworld.com/…/on-chip-optical-link-is-c…


Researchers of the University of Twente (UT; Enschede, Netherlands) have, for the first time, succeeded in connecting two parts of an electronic chip using an on-chip optical link, all fabricable with standard CMOS technology — a long-sought-after goal, as intrachip connection via light is almost instantaneous and also provides electrical isolation. Such a connection can, for example, be a safe way of connecting high-power electronics and digital control circuitry on a single chip without a direct electrical link. Vishal Agarwal, a UT PhD student, created a very small optocoupler circuit that delivers a data rate of megabits per second in an energy-efficient way.

Read more

Researchers at the George Washington University have taken a major step toward reaching one of the most sought-after goals in physics: room temperature superconductivity.

Superconductivity is the lack of electrical resistance and is observed in many materials when they are cooled below a . Until now, superconducting materials were thought to have to cool to very low temperatures (minus 180 degrees Celsius or minus 292 degrees Fahrenheit), which limited their application. Since makes a system inefficient, eliminating some of this resistance by utilizing room temperature superconductors would allow for more efficient generation and use of electricity, enhanced energy transmission around the world and more powerful computing systems.

“Superconductivity is perhaps one of the last great frontiers of scientific discovery that can transcend to everyday technological applications,” Maddury Somayazulu, an associate research professor at the GW School of Engineering and Applied Science, said. “Room temperature has been the proverbial ‘holy grail’ waiting to be found, and achieving it—albeit at 2 million atmospheres—is a paradigm-changing moment in the history of science.”

Read more

The quantum computing revolution is upon us. Like the first digital computers, quantum computers offer the possibility of technology exponentially more powerful than current systems. They stand to change companies, entire industries, and the world by solving problems that seem impossible today and will likely disrupt every industry.


MIT is offering online courses for professionals in Quantum Computing. Learn the business implifications, and applications of quantum, and take the next step in your career.

Read more

A quantum computer isn’t just a more powerful version of the computers we use today; it’s something else entirely, based on emerging scientific understanding — and more than a bit of uncertainty. Enter the quantum wonderland with TED Fellow Shohini Ghose and learn how this technology holds the potential to transform medicine, create unbreakable encryption and even teleport information.

Read more