Regardless how you feel about killing animals for humans, don't you want companies that can help people to actually move forward faster rather than slower?
thefounder here argues that running experiments in parallel is a moral obligation because we need to get Neuralink out the door as quickly as possible. capableweb responds by arguing that Neuralink's current strategy isn't the fastest way to get that research done. I don't see that as an isolated demand for rigor, I think that's a reasonable objection to the idea that the need to be perfectly efficient outweighs animal ethics.
Parallelizing is very similar to the way modern processors do speculative computing: they go ahead and run several branches of code at once, before knowing which one will actually need to be executed. Once they know, they just use that result and discard the others. It's a pretty standard strategy every time you want to trade money for speed.
In the first push for reaching the moon, there was mass production of rockets that went a lot faster than a slow build-test-analyze-modify-build. By the time one rocket went kaboom, quite a few were already in various stages of being built or even finished.
But either way I don't really see it as an isolated demand for rigor: capableweb is disagreeing about whether Neuralink's strategy is actually optimized for speed, given that thefounder seems to be arguing that optimizing for speed is a moral obligation.
It's more salient, of course, but if the people commenting on this didn't feel the same desire to protect animal lives on other instances in the past few months, I kinda have to think this is less about their actual values and more about the article being written as a successful indignation pump.
That's the question. Is parallelizing animal testing and ramping up the number of animals used a legitimate strategy and does it have a clear tradeoff? No one in is arguing that animal rights only matter in lab testing. Rather, there are two arguments that can be made:
- A) parallelization of animal testing is sloppy research that won't lead to better results.
- B) the benefits of parallelization don't outweigh the moral cost of animal rights.
Those are two separate arguments, and the parent comments were primarily arguing around A. B is orthogonal. That doesn't mean that B is an irrelevant argument or that there's no case to be made for animal welfare in testing, but it's a separate argument from A.
It's like banning SpaceX's "sloppy" development because the failure of their rockets create pollution. Polution is bad and causes death but I think we should not get religious about polution where it matters little and the potential reward is high.
I've commented similarly elsewhere, but I really wish people would stop saying "think about the meat we eat" as an argument for more animal suffering in the world. The correct response to hypocrisy is to have consistently better morals everywhere, not to have consistently worse morals elsewhere.
Of course, people can disagree whether or not killing animals unnecessarily is immoral. But if you want to take the premise that eating meat is wrong, no vegetarian/vegan is ever going to tell you that they don't want unnecessary animal testing stopped until after everyone stops eating meat. People's hypocrisy around specific moral issues should not be treated like a license to completely abandon other standards; taking that approach to morality is a recipe for rapid societal decay.
> where it matters little and the potential reward is high.
Again, you can disagree with capableweb's argument, but I just want to characterize correctly what the argument is -- capableweb is saying that the testing here isn't actually going to significantly increase Neuralink's odds of success or their research speed. I would add to that argument that it may in fact lower Neuralink's odds of success if it encourages sloppier research or decreases public trust in the project. I don't have a strong take on that beyond that I think their testing is symptomatic of Musk imposing deadlines and pressures that are going to be toxic to a productive research environment. I don't know that excessive animal testing is going to slow down their research, but based on what the researchers in this article have said, I am pretty certain that the reason why they're doing excessive animal testing in this case is because Musk is pushing them to do sloppy testing to meet unrealistic deadlines that will lead to sloppy results and a worse product, if they get a product out at all. Fast careless testing is sometimes slower than methodical careful testing.
That's an argument that's orthogonal to the moral cost of killing animals for research purposes. If you don't think there's any moral tradeoff to killing animals at all, then the only thing that matters is how their decisions impact the end result.
And seriously, I just responded on here to clarify what capableweb was talking about and that they weren't making an isolated demand for rigor. I am not interested in getting into an argument about whether all of the research standards for animal welfare should all be dropped so that Musk can theoretically maybe monopolize a market in the future that will likely be inaccessible to most disabled people at a potentially slightly faster speed.
A good comparison would be Musk's other company SpaceX. You can surely put more rigor into r&d to reduce waste and failures (i.e like NASA) but you will progress slower.
Chances are that your company/project will get bankrupt(like so many biotech companies) if you don't move fast enough.
> the number of animal deaths is higher than it needs to be for reasons related to Musk’s demands to speed research. Through company discussions and documents spanning several years, along with employee interviews, Reuters identified four experiments involving 86 pigs and two monkeys that were marred in recent years by human errors. The mistakes weakened the experiments’ research value and required the tests to be repeated,
You said they'd "have to double-run every trial you're doing". Which isn't correct. They have to double run the experiments they screwed up on. That may or may not be faster than taking the time to improve experiment quality.
Yes, in areas like testing discipline. I don't accept the argument that you can skip past the fundamentals and it'll all just work out because you may be able to help some people quicker. That's everyone's goal in that space - to get implants onto the market as fast as possible.
If anything, being sloppy is a point against you when you’re working in particularly impactful stuff, because it shows your skills as a scientist aren’t up to the standards of the field you’re researching.
It's not just that the research could be done with less suffering/death, it's also that this is also not really the highest-priority research if we want to improve the lives of differently-abled and disabled people. But we're being asked to excuse bad research practices that result in unnecessary death because somehow Neuralink specifically is an emergency that needs to have market domination as soon as possible to save lives.
I have no objection to Neuralink responsibly conducting research in this direction, but it's far from the most effective or optimistic way that we could be spending that time and money, so I don't see why they specifically should get a pass to violate research ethics. They're already devoting resources in a way that is sub-optimal if you just want to improve the lives of disabled people as quickly as possible. And that's fine, but at least they can devote those resources responsibly without causing additional suffering.