Live data from Hacker News

Monkey MindPong

neuralink.com

181–190 of 291 posts

Re: Monkey MindPong

#181
post #35

That was difficult to watch. While the technology is impressive, it is sickening to watch. The part where they can pair the phone via bluetooth made me want to vomit. It is obviously unnatural, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Something about seeing that animal, oblivious to what's happening, and that implant with the ability to directly record thoughts and/or remote control. The whole thing doesn't sit well wi…

Bluetooth (BT) is simply a wireless standard for exchanging data between devices over short distances. It is very widespread, reliable enough and easy to develop and integrate. It's an understandable and common choice in the medical devices field.

In a more developed, market society, you typically have several commoditized, replaceable products and most tend to leverage BT. The idea of replaceableness belongs to the product itself, but what we see in common for all of them is BT connectivity, so we tend to perceive BT as an identifier of replaceableness as well.

Neuralink very casually and tongue-in-cheek BT "paired" to the monkey, reinforcing the idea of replaceability and commoditization of the monkey.

Many people have empathy for animals and monkeys are seen as precursors to humans. It's very easy to see how treating a pre-human species like a replaceable product, leaves humans themselves creeped out and feeling like in the future they may also be treated like a replaceable product.

Neuralink needs an ethicist in a high exec position or board and a better PR manager. They should have done some of these to reduce that perception mess: - allude to the use of BT in serious medical applications before "pairing" with the monkey - reduce or change the common BT terms like pairing - use a computer rather than a smartphone - don't mention BT, just say wirelessly connected - don't use a Bond-villain smooth British voice

By talking about it as a PR problem, I don't mean to say that is the root cause, it is just what we can see at the surface.

Do they really care about ethics? Is it execs, engineers, video directors, everyone, no one? Do they care, but are just bad at PR? Do they not care, and this video is a reflection of that? This is what matters, for all those people to genuinely care about ethics.

Can they still genuinely care though, after becoming a corporation? Can bringing shareholder value align with ethics?

One botched video is simply one data point in the public trying to understand Neuralink's genuine stance on ethics.

Only people with close contact to Neuralink will really know. We are all hyper connected, but sadly, only superficially.

Re: Monkey MindPong

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had no idea these things were possible. Are they currently insanely expensive / only experimental? How available are they?

IIRC this is only experimental. The most reliable/interesting stuff are relying on ECoG (== put electrodes on the surface of the brain), and this means you have to perform a surgery. For human applications, most of the time the researchers are using patients that requires several brains surgery (e.g severe epilepsy) so that they can do some sort of fly-by experiments (several surgery are needed so that they can also…

Thanks - so it seems like it's actually the ease-of-implant part that Neuralink is really doing most interesting development on then, rather than the actual abilities it gives (so far at least)

Re: Monkey MindPong

#183
post #50

This seems to be very similar to the early 2000s demos at Brown University/Cyberkinetics[1]. In 2008 they demonstrated it in humans[2] after lots of work getting FDA approval. The core difference here (from my non-expert reading) seem to be electrodes are along a thread rather than on a chip. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJJPbpHoPWo for a video of the pong demo in humans. The motor cortex seems to have a clear…

I'm curious - does taking a signal straight from the brain reduce reaction times?

Is there a big loss of time sending the signal down to the arm, or is the reaction time mostly cognitive anyway?

Re: Monkey MindPong

#184
post #150

For those who don’t know much about this field, this seems incredible. The reality is that this a tech demo that Neuralink is using to practice the basics. For other research groups in this field, this is tech from 20 years ago. The current state of the art is humans, mostly quadriplegic people, with chips which let them control robot arms with enough accuracy to pick up small delicate objects, play games, and type b…

Would it be possible to control an extra arm somehow? Or brain plasticity doesn't go that far?

this is why we can't have nice things... :)

Re: Monkey MindPong

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or the metal conductor plays a huge role in the electrical signals they get from the implanted electrodes I highly doubt that, you must be talking about non-invasive electrodes such as EEG. When the electrodes are inside the brain and thus in the cranium, they are effectively protected from outside EM activity since they're in an effective Faraday cage, so your signal has much higher fidelity.

The skull works as a Faraday cage in such situations?

Nowhere near a perfect conductor. It, and the muscles around it, create noise and weaken the internal signal measured externally, acting as an effective cage. Measuring the signal from outside the skull is a bad idea. From inside (e.g. hippocampus), the electrodes are so much closer to the neurons, that the majority of the measured signal is not due to cranial noise.

Re: Monkey MindPong

#186
This innovation opens up new ways of UX and human machine interaction. Just curious about the long term effects of externally controlling neuron signals.

Re: Monkey MindPong

#188
post #150

For those who don’t know much about this field, this seems incredible. The reality is that this a tech demo that Neuralink is using to practice the basics. For other research groups in this field, this is tech from 20 years ago. The current state of the art is humans, mostly quadriplegic people, with chips which let them control robot arms with enough accuracy to pick up small delicate objects, play games, and type b…

Would it be possible to control an extra arm somehow? Or brain plasticity doesn't go that far?

Many monkeys use their tail as an extra arm, so, should not be a problem.

Re: Monkey MindPong

#189

I know I'm conforming to a stereotype by saying this, but I cant stop thinking about how this could be the premise of a Black Mirror Episode. I also think we should restrict such technology. Without restrictions we can play God, and I am in no way approving of doing anyhting similar to that. The part about pairing the monkeys NeuraLink Device "like you do with a speaker" made me laugh. Not becuase it's funny, but bec…

I don't understand your core point: why is it inherently wrong to attempt to augment the brain? It seems like a purely instinctual response.

Is it God's will for paralyzed people to remain unable to interact with the world, and live the rest of their lives in misery? If we have a way to do a lot of good for a lot of people, isn't it inherently immoral to not develop the technology further?

Re: Monkey MindPong

#190
post #150

For those who don’t know much about this field, this seems incredible. The reality is that this a tech demo that Neuralink is using to practice the basics. For other research groups in this field, this is tech from 20 years ago. The current state of the art is humans, mostly quadriplegic people, with chips which let them control robot arms with enough accuracy to pick up small delicate objects, play games, and type b…

The chips you describe, are they responding to brain activity, or are they connected to something outside it, and if so, is that remnant muscle tissue or remnant (peripheral) neural tissue? And if so, do you agree that if that's missing, this is an unprecedented (possible) solution?
Post reply on HN