https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230824/Brain-computer-in...
https://news.brown.edu/articles/2012/05/braingate2
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.037719
If you google "BCI brain computer interface paralyzed" you will find a wealth of researchers and organizations working on it which are not Neuralink.
Shaking President Obama's hand with "touch feedback" in 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itkgmMLi7l4
Eating a taco in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjfA78FuZM
Robot arm in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjFr0rnbT24
Playing Final Fantasy 14 with a BCI in 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjNHkRH0Dus
Non-invasive robot arm control in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eOSlzDdOpg
Non-invasive robot arm control in 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asDwupMbE2I
Speech/voice generation in 2024: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8frSsvwPp4
The technology to do these sorts of things as proof-of-concepts is fairly old. You do not see widespread deployment because brain surgery betas are not a very good idea. There is insufficient evidence the technology is mature or safe enough to support full-scale deployment. A common class of problem being brain scarring on the invasive insertions that reduce efficacy of the implant requiring further damaging brain surgery to remove the implant in a few years.
When you have insufficiently mature technology for deployment you optimize for research. For that, you only need enough to saturate your researchers with data and well-designed tests which is usually achieved with only a small number of units. This is similar to the reason why you only need a few prototype cars even when you are going to make millions of them. If you are not deploying, then you do not need a lot to saturate your design/development process and making a bunch of each half-baked version prior to the final release candidate is a waste of time.
When the technology is minimally adequate, then you scale up. In contrast, deploying middling quantities of proof-of-concept versions as if that "tests" anything is a recipe for a slow-burning disaster. Nobody else is "trying to compete" on who can deploy more because competing on who can deploy more half-baked brain implants would be unethical.
The hard parts of BCI are: Electrode sensing, but that's a much less difficult problem nowadays. Implant longevity, probably an unsolvable problem without massive advancements in understanding the body. Brain surgery, which will never not be a huge deal because piercing the barriers that protect the brain is just inherently a huge deal and risky to do.
I'm pretty sure Neuralink is the only one mass killing monkeys though.
Note that Elon has also helped push for the killing of US science funding, like funding used to further study BCIs. How convenient for him that all his competition is suddenly going to struggle.
That seems pretty benign compared to what a neural implant could be made to do to someone.
Well of course the device doesn't have to be programmed to be controlled by the host, does it ? Torture entirely by manipulating the compute substrate your mind runs on would be effective† and yet very easy to do... so this is in fact just another torture device.
† Effective in the sense that it would inflict needless misery on people, that's what torture is actually for, it's not an effective interrogation strategy and never has been.
Black Mirror: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Against_Fire
just as an example
I don't like Musk and I find Neuralink spooky in terms of their overall goals, but it's hard to deny how much this invention helps people.
I see the promise, but I've got too many real life examples of security issues to draw on to trust it would even keep working very long — let alone working appropriately and under my control — to allow one to control my body, which an implant would necessarily need to do.
And that's even with 100% of the biological compatibility issues being solved (I'm told those take several years to show up in all the other research examples from everyone else) and assuming that there was no trust deficit with Musk's companies selling products on the promise of what they aspire to do "this year" and don't/them having misleading demos — this is a fundamental issue of digital security being hard.
If an accident like Christopher Reeve's were to happen, I'd wait for something that repaired or regenerated tissue over a chip.
No.
Not abstractions.
I have experience of software, I know how bad the entire industry is.
https://xkcd.com/2030/ applies to everything.
Even without malice, my degree used as case studies the failures of the Therac-25 and the digitalisation of the 1992 failure of the London Ambulance Service computerised dispatch system.
Hospitals and devices do get attacked. Bitcoin ransomware does affect hospitals. These are not abstractions, they are things that actually happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_device_hijack
I wasn't being "abstract" when I said the frequency with which attacks are attempted can be measured in Herz, that's an actual anecdote from someone I knew a decade ago.
Not being able to move your hands is not an abstract concept. It can be directly experienced.
"Disability in general" exactly as much an abstraction as "software safety in general".
It's all hypothetical anyway, what's your deal? Are you saying the totally hypothetical life changing cure is something to be impressed by so much, that the real suffering caused by those pursuing it is to be ignored? Ignoring the real suffering for some hypothetical deus ex machina is very cowardly, and if my hypothetical sacrifice reminded you of that, that's fine.
"If Elon Musk gave a shit about anything than profit, and knew his ass from his elbow, and this tech was feasible, and you were paralyzed, would you do it?"
He doesn't, he doesn't, it may not be, and I'm not, so the question is moot. But it's very scientific to ask, and a great way to navigate such society impacting questions, thanks!
This is Reddit-level delusion right here. Please don't bring that here.
I think Musk is driven by both.
Even now, despite the flaws I see in him, I still assume Musk thinks he's improving humanity.
But he needs, and knows he needs, a lot of money for Mars. There's unambiguously a lot of profit motive.
Unlike @computerthings, my objection is on the tech, not the person. The person doesn't help, he also doesn't seem to get the mindset needed for quality software security, but also doesn't make it much worse given how bad this is everywhere.
How much do you think Neuralink is going to cost? How will people who can't get around on their own pay that? How are people who can't work going to pay that?
I don't know why supporters of all these things are so unable to view the whole situation. Musk doesn't want to pay taxes to a government that will support these disabled people. Musk doesn't want to support these disabled people. They are literally pawns for PR to him.
Musk doesn't want to advance the HUMAN RACE. Musk wants to advance CERTAIN PEOPLE.
> Musk doesn't want to advance the HUMAN RACE. Musk wants to advance CERTAIN PEOPLE.
I think he can't tell the difference between those certain people and the human race as a whole. Trans people in particular would be the obvious example of his failure here — ironically, given how much inspiration he's taken from a fictional universe where people can change physical gender by thinking about it a bit and waiting a few months.
It's… not intended as a compliment when I say he "seems sincere" about wanting to advance the human race when it comes with this caveat. Quite the opposite.
Likewise given what else he's "seemed sincere" about in the past and hasn't manifested.