Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monkey MindPong

neuralink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 291 posts

Re: Monkey MindPong

#281

Post by ianai »

elil17 wrote: 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…

You really shot this down with your comment until the end. I’m curious what you could see happening with this tech in 5/10/20/30 years? Particularly the “bonkers” stuff.

I’m asking in part because Elon’s suggested this could eventually lead to whole brain uploads and downloads. Partly asking because it’s pretty easy to be very destructive with a comment like yours and offering a glimpse of where this stands out from the crowd balances the attack.

Re: Monkey MindPong

#282

Post by nmca »

CapCad wrote: post #271
nmca wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd encourage anyone worried about the ethics of animal experiments in research like this to come up with prioritisation metrics over a number of animal welfare cause areas as an exercise. Surely a small number of well-cared for animals in high-upside experiments are lower on the list than say, pigs for pork sausages, which have worse welfare, smaller upsides and are more cost efficient to campaign against.

Would you respond the same way to ethical concerns about the treatment of a small number of humans? If we could find larger groups of humans facing worse treatment (and surely we could), you might conclude that the smaller, less-poorly treated group is simply not worth discussing. But I'd argue in that case (as I would in this one) that the conclusion is mistaken. Also, if I may ask, do you think we have to choose be…

You only have a finite amount of time and resources, the way in which you choose to spend them can have enormous influence on the resulting impact. Given this, you have to prioritize. If you are not prioritizing, then somebody or something is doing it for you.

I don't think these monkeys are "not worth discussing" - but I don't think they merit more than a cursory evaluation. The same is true for say, people that are killed by falling coconuts.

There are, in all likelihood, cost-effective causes that you can donate to, in terms of your dollars, skills and capcity to give a damn. I'd suggest these monkeys shouldn't make the list.

Re: Monkey MindPong

#283

Post by CapCad »

nmca wrote: post #282
CapCad wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you respond the same way to ethical concerns about the treatment of a small number of humans? If we could find larger groups of humans facing worse treatment (and surely we could), you might conclude that the smaller, less-poorly treated group is simply not worth discussing. But I'd argue in that case (as I would in this one) that the conclusion is mistaken. Also, if I may ask, do you think we have to choose be…

You only have a finite amount of time and resources, the way in which you choose to spend them can have enormous influence on the resulting impact. Given this, you have to prioritize. If you are not prioritizing, then somebody or something is doing it for you. I don't think these monkeys are "not worth discussing" - but I don't think they merit more than a cursory evaluation. The same is true for say, people that are…

Interesting. And you think these monkeys shouldn't make anyone's list? (I'm inferring, given that you began by addressing "anyone" with ethical concerns.)

I'd understand if you said they didn't make the cut for you personally, but I'm not sure why you'd be invested in ruling them out for everyone.

(And this a sidebar, but I think one could quite reasonably believe that advocacy here is worthwhile in exactly the bang-per-buck utilitarian sense you're invoking. For instance, people who are galvanized on behalf on these monkeys might then change their actions towards less visible, less relatable nonhumans like pigs, chickens, and fishes.)

Re: Monkey MindPong

#284

Post by elil17 »

lolthishuman wrote: post #275
elil17 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really cool! I think one of the things that will hold them back is that there are still a lot of issues on even knowing where to place the electrodes - but as those issues are solved this will have such amazing potential!

It sounds like they know exactly where to put it based on their white paper. The problem is more materials engineering for longevity and economics.

They know where to put them for the tasks they are targeting right now - tasks which have already been performed in the lab. Beyond that is a open question

Re: Monkey MindPong

#285

Post by nmca »

CapCad wrote: post #283
nmca wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only have a finite amount of time and resources, the way in which you choose to spend them can have enormous influence on the resulting impact. Given this, you have to prioritize. If you are not prioritizing, then somebody or something is doing it for you. I don't think these monkeys are "not worth discussing" - but I don't think they merit more than a cursory evaluation. The same is true for say, people that are…

Interesting. And you think these monkeys shouldn't make anyone's list? (I'm inferring, given that you began by addressing "anyone" with ethical concerns.) I'd understand if you said they didn't make the cut for you personally, but I'm not sure why you'd be invested in ruling them out for everyone. (And this a sidebar, but I think one could quite reasonably believe that advocacy here is worthwhile in exactly the bang-…

Pretty much everyone - if you work for neuralink there's some chance of cheap interventions here, but outside of that it seems unlikely.

The latter point (galvanised to support other welfare causes) is roughly what inspired the original post - our intuitive emotional reactions to visible harm should indeed encourage effort in investing in effective harm reduction advocacy. But if seeing these monkeys makes you sad, you really ought to think about all the less-visible, cheap to attack welfare issues that are available.

Re: Monkey MindPong

#286

Post by nmca »

nmca wrote: post #285
CapCad wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. And you think these monkeys shouldn't make anyone's list? (I'm inferring, given that you began by addressing "anyone" with ethical concerns.) I'd understand if you said they didn't make the cut for you personally, but I'm not sure why you'd be invested in ruling them out for everyone. (And this a sidebar, but I think one could quite reasonably believe that advocacy here is worthwhile in exactly the bang-…

Pretty much everyone - if you work for neuralink there's some chance of cheap interventions here, but outside of that it seems unlikely. The latter point (galvanised to support other welfare causes) is roughly what inspired the original post - our intuitive emotional reactions to visible harm should indeed encourage effort in investing in effective harm reduction advocacy. But if seeing these monkeys makes you sad, y…

( I avoided it in the headline comment so as not to seem to shill, but if you're interested in what cause areas come out ahead, I broadly endorse, but am not affiliated with, the analysis here: https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-reviews/all-char... )

Re: Monkey MindPong

#287

Post by CapCad »

nmca wrote: post #286
nmca wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much everyone - if you work for neuralink there's some chance of cheap interventions here, but outside of that it seems unlikely. The latter point (galvanised to support other welfare causes) is roughly what inspired the original post - our intuitive emotional reactions to visible harm should indeed encourage effort in investing in effective harm reduction advocacy. But if seeing these monkeys makes you sad, y…

( I avoided it in the headline comment so as not to seem to shill, but if you're interested in what cause areas come out ahead, I broadly endorse, but am not affiliated with, the analysis here: https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-reviews/all-char... )

Thanks for sharing! It's a good resource and not one I've come across before.

So I do very much appreciate the spirit of your comment: that we should attend to less visible (and more easily addressed) harms, and not get caught up in 'celebrity causes,' so to speak.

But I think where I differ from you is that I don't view it as an either-or paradigm. I'd say to people "Go ahead and try to help these monkey individuals, and also work for, e.g., food-farmed nonhumans (who are easier to help, etc.)"

I appreciate the risk you're citing, that people could effectively "waste" time and resources on a case like this. But I'd argue there's a greater risk in approaching ethics as A) zero sum, and B) generalizable. I'll elaborate:

A) It's certainly true that we only have so many minutes in the day and so many dollars in our wallet. But I think these zero-sum resources are often not the final limit on what we can do. Rather, the limits we reach are emotional and psychological energy - which is often not zero-sum. Getting engaged in an issue (especially when it's an issue that radicalizes you) can actually increase the amount of time and resources you find for other issues. (I.e., you reclaim it from less important stuff.)

B) I'd argue ethics is patently not generalizable (in the sense that you're suggesting - i.e. that everyone should reach the same conclusion about which cases are worth effort), simply because humans are so varied. One person might have tons of money and be happy to spend on this cause in addition to whatever they give to help farmed nonhumans. Another person might feel a special bond with monkeys that makes this an easy, non-taxing (or even net-energy-positive) issue to engage in. Yet another person might currently find the plight of food-farmed nonhumans overwhelming to consider, but these monkeys will be a stepping-stone issue that help them get there. Etc.

Re: Monkey MindPong

#288

Post by mlindner »

elil17 wrote: 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…

You're confusing apples and oranges here. Those implants you're referring to are at the injury site (arm stump for example), not in the brain. Completely different technology.

Re: Monkey MindPong

#289

Post by mlindner »

trombonechamp wrote: post #209
graderjs wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a little unfair. I guess what they are doing is achieving the basics, but with a different interface. This is an important proof of concept. Remember, Musk is all about scalable manufacturing and products. If this was other's tech from 20 years ago, where's the massive commercialization? They failed. Musk is focused on this aspect, and he will (given his past achievements) succeed.

This is really basic. Here is a harder task from 2015 in monkeys with only 96 implanted electrodes (Utah array): https://youtu.be/lVFWIv5lupo?t=1673 Here is a video from 2014 of someone controlling a quadcopter with their mind with zero implanted electrodes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsraC04Mm8w

The professor in that first video is a consultant of Neuralink as well now, FYI.

Re: Monkey MindPong

#290

Post by mlindner »

dang wrote: post #261
mlindner wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused why you'd even feel that way? Neuralink goes into a LOT of effort for animals to feel good. Animal studies happen all the time for medical testing, and from what I hear Neuralink is much better than the average. As they said in the video, the animal is doing the activity of it of it's own free will. They don't harm the animal if it refuses to participate. Are you familiar with the term "luddite"?

Please omit snark and name-calling from your comments to HN. Your comment would be fine without the swipe at the end. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Well I can't edit it to remove it.
Post reply on HN