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

The human cost of neurotechnology failure

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 160 posts

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#21

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

skissane wrote: post #16
plastiquebeech wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to be very careful with brain implants designed to relieve pain, lest we repeat the mistakes which brought us the opioid crisis. I've seen videos at BCI conferences of deep brain stimulation implants which provide the patient with a "happy button" to relieve chronic pain/anxiety/depression/etc. They seem to work very well in a clinical setting, but the patient reactions make it clear that there will be an eno…

The “opioid crisis” is a crisis because (1) it is easy to accidentally kill yourself with opioids; (2) drug criminalisation makes recreational drug use a lot less safe than it could be were it legal and regulated I doubt overuse of a “happy button” brain implant is going to kill you; and I doubt it is going to end up in a similar legal situation to recreational drugs. So, whatever the negative impacts of overuse of s…

Also, with a brain implant, it would be possible to rate limit the “happy button” similar to time-locked IV buttons or medicine bottles.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#22

Post by adolph »

skissane wrote: post #16
plastiquebeech wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to be very careful with brain implants designed to relieve pain, lest we repeat the mistakes which brought us the opioid crisis. I've seen videos at BCI conferences of deep brain stimulation implants which provide the patient with a "happy button" to relieve chronic pain/anxiety/depression/etc. They seem to work very well in a clinical setting, but the patient reactions make it clear that there will be an eno…

The “opioid crisis” is a crisis because (1) it is easy to accidentally kill yourself with opioids; (2) drug criminalisation makes recreational drug use a lot less safe than it could be were it legal and regulated I doubt overuse of a “happy button” brain implant is going to kill you; and I doubt it is going to end up in a similar legal situation to recreational drugs. So, whatever the negative impacts of overuse of s…

Part of the longer term crisis comes from maladaptive coping mechanisms. Time will tell if a “happy button” is adaptive or not. My guess is that those tools which promote use ahead of outcome aren’t really fit for purpose.

That said, I’d gladly stick my head in a microwave if it’s make a bad day more bearable.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#23

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

alerighi wrote: post #13
ryukafalz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete > Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete And Unsupported It's for this reason that I believe all medical implant firmware and required associated software should be FOSS. Nobody should ever lose the use of something embedded in their body because a company goes out of business.

Yes, the code of these devices should be 100% FOSS. Also the argument about defending intellectual property doesn't make sense: the software will probably do trivial things and be very simple, that is what you are selling is the hardware itself, and that is already covered by patents. So making the code public will allow people to find a replacement in the eventuality that the manufacturer stops supporting the produc…

In the case of the above implant, open hardware specifications would have been needed: the stock of replacement hardware (the computing device worn on the body) is limited. The Spectrum article gives an example of a patient that had to work with his doctor and hunt for unused devices to replace a device that was damaged from a drop.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#24

Post by zx8080 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #19
jamiek88 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes pain can indeed be an incorrect signal. Phantom limb pain is one example that comes to mind.

I've had phantom pain. I no longer do. It's still telling you something is wrong, though perhaps a different something.

Sounds interesting. Do you mind sharing how was that cured?

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#25

Post by frosted-flakes »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #20
ShroudedNight wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this reconcile with scenarios where there is no discernible physiological explanation for the pain experienced by a patient?

There's a lot we still don't know about the human body. Our current inability to establish cause may be a defect in our knowledge base, not evidence that "there's nothing actually wrong."

OK, that is obvious, but knowing it doesn't make the pain go away. Instead, we should attack the problem from both sides.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#26

Post by Nevermark »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #7

Pain is information. Instead of trying to manipulate the brain into not feeling it, we need to be figuring out the cause and fixing that. These ooh, shiny med tech solutions are likely on such shakey ground in part because the mindset that says "Hey, what can we build and sell to make the pain go away?" (instead of wondering what causes the pain and fixing that) is exactly the kind of thought process that turns a bli…

You are arguing for cruelty with a false dilemma.

The symptoms are the problem.

The suffering and loss of function are the problem.

Sure, total causal knowledge and a perfect treatment would be nice. But until we have that, ignoring partial solutions in the name of medical research purity would be deeply irresponsible.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#27

Post by DoreenMichele »

Nevermark wrote: post #26
DoreenMichele wrote: post #7

Pain is information. Instead of trying to manipulate the brain into not feeling it, we need to be figuring out the cause and fixing that. These ooh, shiny med tech solutions are likely on such shakey ground in part because the mindset that says "Hey, what can we build and sell to make the pain go away?" (instead of wondering what causes the pain and fixing that) is exactly the kind of thought process that turns a bli…

You are arguing for cruelty with a false dilemma. The symptoms are the problem. The suffering and loss of function are the problem. Sure, total causal knowledge and a perfect treatment would be nice. But until we have that, ignoring partial solutions in the name of medical research purity would be deeply irresponsible.

Sure, total causal knowledge and a perfect treatment would be nice.

We won't get it if we never bother to look for it.

I'm not arguing for cruelty. These articles make the front page of HN precisely because our current approach is so broken that people find the results horrifying.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#28

Post by icelancer »

drodgers wrote: post #5

I really like the proposal from John Scalzi's 'Lock In' series where companies that produce neural implants have to establish a trust or insurance contract with enough assets to pay for the maintenance of any implants for the lifetime of the recipients, regardless of what happens to the company. Governments could provide generous subsidies, tax breaks etc. to such funds to reduce the barrier for entry for companies.…

>> Without some solution like this, it's hard to imagine any non-essential neural implants really taking off: who would ever buy a neural lace from a startup — or even an established company like Google who might just lose interest — if there was no guarentee of patches and maintenance?

Speaking as someone who lived with chronic, daily, horrific pain for years before a surgery miraculously solved most of my problems - if that surgery had not worked or wasn't available, I would have eventually signed up.

Thousands or more people live with debilitating pain that drives them to suicidal ideation, drug abuse, and worse.

We already live in the future you describe and people turn to far worse things than neural implants to cope.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#29

Post by egberts1 »

drodgers wrote: post #5

I really like the proposal from John Scalzi's 'Lock In' series where companies that produce neural implants have to establish a trust or insurance contract with enough assets to pay for the maintenance of any implants for the lifetime of the recipients, regardless of what happens to the company. Governments could provide generous subsidies, tax breaks etc. to such funds to reduce the barrier for entry for companies.…

Non-essential Cochlear Implant took off because there was a strong demand to restore a human capability, hearing.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#30

Post by noobermin »

drodgers wrote: post #5

I really like the proposal from John Scalzi's 'Lock In' series where companies that produce neural implants have to establish a trust or insurance contract with enough assets to pay for the maintenance of any implants for the lifetime of the recipients, regardless of what happens to the company. Governments could provide generous subsidies, tax breaks etc. to such funds to reduce the barrier for entry for companies.…

Or even better, if the company fails to fulfill their obligation, their patent and proprietary information is automatically obtained by the government. If they subsidize, there should be strings.
Post reply on HN