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

Neuralink’s FDA troubles are just the beginning

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Neuralink’s FDA troubles are just the beginning

#41

Post by florbnit »

transitivebs wrote: post #2

The example they gave of another company getting IDE Approval (Synchron) makes it seem possible, but I don't know how much of this is just general governmental inefficiencies and some level of systemic bias against Elon (stemming from big oil & auto). Or is the startup mentality of move fast and break things just not as applicable in this domain?

> general governmental inefficiencies and some level of systemic bias against

Imagine trying to get government permission to drive a car, but you don’t want to talk to anyone who has ever driven a car, or engage with the “overly burocratic” process for getting a drivers license. You might end up feeling like the system is biased against you, but it should be obvious that you are just being intentionally difficult at every step. Musk should have brought on people with experience rather than try to sidestep the system. This isn’t like his self driving cars where he can just put it out I beta and blame end users for getting killed or killing others.

Re: Neuralink’s FDA troubles are just the beginning

#42

Post by corbulo »

sockaddr wrote: post #23
corbulo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a philosophical decision. Paraphrasing, he believes that if people live too long it will hinder political evolution.

if(!is_elon) { // if people live too long it will hinder political evolution }

processing. . .

Re: Neuralink’s FDA troubles are just the beginning

#43

Post by throwaway60701 »

klodolph wrote: post #33
whatshisface wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The basic summary is this: Neuralink is Theranos, except with animal cruelty. ... and without the fraud? You can't get Neuralink installed at wallgreens, for example.

Is that a material difference? The basic elements of the formula are there—promise some kind of revolutionary advancement in medical technology, fail to deliver it, but keep going down the same path anyway. I think that the people at the center of these schemes are believers, or at least, they start out that way. You believe that this technology will provide great benefits in the future, and so you do whatever you fe…

Fail to deliver? Wut? They never commited to any timeline and have just began. What do you expect, brain computer interfaces and robot brain surgeons in less than a decade of development? That's crazy. I expect at least 2 decades, if not more.

Re: Neuralink’s FDA troubles are just the beginning

#44

Post by extheat »

watwut wrote: post #34
extheat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's alot of "luck" then. If only everyone could be as "lucky". I wonder how many CEOs have in-depth understanding of their products? My guess is it would be few.

He does not have in dept understanding of his product. He is massively charismatic, good at impressing people and very good at playing people. And most CEOs does not seem that bad compared to Musk.

He takes questions at Tesla earnings calls that other CEOs would delegate to lower level executives, and can talk about rocket science when prompted (see Tim Dodd's videos). That's not to say he's an expert on everything, one thing to note is he's also been working at those companies since the start. In my view, a big part of why his companies are successful is he actually does understand the product portfolio to a great depth that most CEOs who simply do management don't. I'm not talking to the level of "I can code this myself", I simply mean "I understand the software used to make this, how it talks with X and why we do Y instead of Z". It's easy to bash on people because you don't like them, but it doesn't make for a convincing argument with blanket statements like that.

Re: Neuralink’s FDA troubles are just the beginning

#45

Post by pyinstallwoes »

xiphias2 wrote: post #6

Reversing the aging process looks to be much easier problem to solve than uploading the brain. I dont understand why Elon didnt put his money in that direction. Luckily some people are starting to understand how close we are at solving reversing aging (measured in decades).

Because it isn't about aging, it is about solving the "ai alignment problem."

Re: Neuralink’s FDA troubles are just the beginning

#47

Post by klodolph »

echelon wrote: post #36
iancmceachern wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And those points make what happoned less true or less bad?

Animals die for humans to live better lives all the time. There are protocols to minimize, but not eliminate, suffering. Animal testing is a greater good that helps us understand the diseases that plague us and look for cures. The goals of Neuralink are some of the most important being undertaken. It might seem abstract or wishful to some, but should they succeed we will have a plausible way to escape our mortality.…

Neuralink’s goals aren’t sufficient justification here, the question is about whether the actual research done by Neuralink can plausibly produce outcomes that benefit us, and whether the subjects are suffering needlessly.

If you try to rush research, you don’t necessarily get the same research but faster, you might just get bad research instead.

Re: Neuralink’s FDA troubles are just the beginning

#48

Post by watwut »

extheat wrote: post #44
watwut wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does not have in dept understanding of his product. He is massively charismatic, good at impressing people and very good at playing people. And most CEOs does not seem that bad compared to Musk.

He takes questions at Tesla earnings calls that other CEOs would delegate to lower level executives, and can talk about rocket science when prompted (see Tim Dodd's videos). That's not to say he's an expert on everything, one thing to note is he's also been working at those companies since the start. In my view, a big part of why his companies are successful is he actually does understand the product portfolio to a g…

Every single time he talked about something I understand, it was good sounding bs. He is good at pop science talk and at impressing people. But he is neither engineer nor scientist. Not even close.

> He takes questions at Tesla earnings calls that other CEOs would delegate to lower level executives

He can lie better and he is controlling micromanager.

Re: Neuralink’s FDA troubles are just the beginning

#49

Post by klodolph »

throwaway60701 wrote: post #43
klodolph wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a material difference? The basic elements of the formula are there—promise some kind of revolutionary advancement in medical technology, fail to deliver it, but keep going down the same path anyway. I think that the people at the center of these schemes are believers, or at least, they start out that way. You believe that this technology will provide great benefits in the future, and so you do whatever you fe…

Fail to deliver? Wut? They never commited to any timeline and have just began. What do you expect, brain computer interfaces and robot brain surgeons in less than a decade of development? That's crazy. I expect at least 2 decades, if not more.

The technique Neuralink is using to fail to deliver is a bold one where they make outrageous claims about what kind of problems they can solve with brain-computer interfaces.

Re: Neuralink’s FDA troubles are just the beginning

#50

Post by throwaway60701 »

klodolph wrote: post #49
throwaway60701 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fail to deliver? Wut? They never commited to any timeline and have just began. What do you expect, brain computer interfaces and robot brain surgeons in less than a decade of development? That's crazy. I expect at least 2 decades, if not more.

The technique Neuralink is using to fail to deliver is a bold one where they make outrageous claims about what kind of problems they can solve with brain-computer interfaces.

There are other companies doing similar BCIs and rather successfully. There is a pretty good understanding of what such interfaces can do because it has already been tried in humans - see what is being done with people who have severe epilepsy, for example.

The innovation of Neuralink is not the idea of BCI itself nor the benefits it can bring - that's old news. Neuralink is about the surgery procedure and bringing it to mass market.

Post reply on HN