I thought that was pretty cool, then i realized the video is actually made out of youtube clips. it's not reconstructing brain signals as video, it's just playing an assosiation game which really doesn't seem that ground-breaking

>>10491
Yup.
Still, if I got it right and they actually set up the computer to learn how to fetch visual data from the brain, process how the brain would perceive the samples and then interpolate which video sample fitted the brain signal better, it still seems quite groundbreaking.

One can only dream about the future of film and other media if artests could directly crate their vision exactly as they see it in their mind.
Not only would we have visually incredible content out there, but it wouldn't take years to make or nearly as much money.

I saw something like this on an episode of House once

>>10493
And then goodbye art as a career

>>10496
thank goodness, it should never have been a career in the first place.

>>10493
It will cost nothing to create and pennies to distribute, but I have a feeling they won't change the cost they charge to see it.

This sounds too much like "in the future, everyone will be able to read your thoughts" for me to be comfortable with it

>>10498
why

>>10508
One could say it defeats the freedom of expression when you have deadlines and money thrown into it's cogs.

Then again, most renaissance artists were payed by comission. But to switch it around on that one again, very few artists are even remembered. Too much shit saturating the market so to speak.