Neuralink 'Participant 1' says his life has changed

Post by Xorakios » Wed, Aug 27, 2025, 9:08 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #175

dvt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is basically the textbook definition of unethical medical practice This is an extremely uncharitable interpretation of what was said. First of all, it's really hard to get malpractice here, as consent is implied (unless you'd think he'd purposefully do a bad or sloppy job). You could say it's irresponsible, and that argument holds more water, but when folks are in these terrible situations (i.e. terminally ill…

Being blind or disabled isn't anything like dying of cancer. We allow compassionate testing of therapies that might allow you to live longer because the alternative is an ugly death. Consent is never ever ever implied and you don't have to deliberately do a poor job to be liable. Just not having good evidence of the therapy is liable to improve their lot and doing it anyway or failing to impart an accurate picture of…

Post by nzrf » Wed, Aug 27, 2025, 9:11 AM UTC

ckemere wrote: post #227

I think that the negativity here is unfortunate. The reality is that it’s very hard to see a normal VC level return on the $100M+ Elon and friends have invested here. And don’t let anyone fool you - this is the fundamental reason the BCI field has moved slowly. If Neuralink proceeds to a scenario where quadriplegic patients can get reliable (ie lifelong) control of their computers for less than $100k that will be a h…

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Aug 27, 2025, 9:20 AM UTC

regularfry wrote: post #337

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unfortunate part is that your first thought went to return on investment rather than the humanitarian angle It’s just a pragmatic take on sustainability of innovation. If nobody—no person or government or non-profit—would find value in the future of the work, it merits questioning why do it versus something else.

There's a spectrum here, though. There's a difference between "nobody would find value in the work" and "nobody can figure out how to get VC-level returns from the work on VC timescales."

Post by sokoloff » Wed, Aug 27, 2025, 9:58 AM UTC

LunaSea wrote: post #333

maxlin wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies like this going under is a horror story for the patients I've seen playing out a few times. But I honestly can't see something as public and well-funded having the same fate. "Elon Musk losing interest" isn't really something I see likely as he doesn't function in the money-oriented ways pretty much almost all other billionaire-types do. He loves the tech and the ideals, and Neuralink is past the point of e…

> isn't really something I see likely as he doesn't function in the money-oriented ways pretty much almost all other billionaire-types do Is that why he sued to obtain his $29B package from Tesla shareholders?

Post by tolani_somoye » Wed, Aug 27, 2025, 10:06 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #326

positron26 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a decent reason that all such augmentations need to be built on open technologies. If no provider can guarantee future support, only open strategies are even viable for users.

> decent reason that all such augmentations need to be built on open technologies Open is a red herring. Mandate documentation and bonding for long-term support. If the cheapest way to provide those are through an open-source platform, great. If not, that’s also fine. Patient outcomes outweigh ideological preferences.