Live data from Hacker News

I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

thenextweb.com

11–20 of 80 posts

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#11
I am not an expert, but what I thought was remarkable is the 12000 channels Musk talked about. New cochlear implants have 120 channels - one channel is one neuron (AFAIK) - more neurons is better results.

I would love some expert take on this, but my first reaction was „12000 sounds like a lot - they all work? That’s cool“.

Also check out this wait but why article which I think explains the resolution pretty well: https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#12
The demo was impressive. Did the author not see the part where they were predicting the body position of the walking pig?

I don't see how that is going to be done with stick on sensors.

And yes, some implantable BCI devices have better capability. The point is to make this as cheap as possible... so that it doesn't require a brain surgeon to install. Because brain surgeons are expensive.

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#13
They stated explicitly that this was a recruitment event, so personally I feel like some of the hype can be forgiven.

The tone of this article is negative and I instinctively want to defend Neuralink because I hope that we can eventually achieve all of those sci-fi ambitions. But I think that's the wrong approach, and possibly insulting to researchers who have been working on these problems for decades only to be overshadowed by what I have to admit was not the most impressive demo.

However, this event does attract attention, so what I'm really hoping for is an influx of long-read articles and in-depth analyses coming from experts in the various fields surrounding Neuralink's aims as a result of the hightened interest in the topic.

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#14

I am not an expert, but what I thought was remarkable is the 12000 channels Musk talked about. New cochlear implants have 120 channels - one channel is one neuron (AFAIK) - more neurons is better results. I would love some expert take on this, but my first reaction was „12000 sounds like a lot - they all work? That’s cool“. Also check out this wait but why article which I think explains the resolution pretty well: ht…

[deleted]

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#16
post #4

These various networked computer components being attached to our bodies make me very nervous. See: hackers control pacemaker shock cycles with malware. [1] Software will always be vulnerable and it’s just a matter of time until someone gets eliminated by this vector - or worse, think about a wormable exploit aimed at mass adopted Neuralinks to mass fry people.. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/pacemaker-hack-malware-…

It is scary, but what is the actual incentive?

Terrorism, and that is it as far as I can see. In cyber up until know, criminals and espionage seem like much bigger threats than terrorism. We are introducing a new attack surface here, and it makes sense to consider whether we want to. But it is not an attack surface that seems likely to attract many attackers.

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#17
post #12

The demo was impressive. Did the author not see the part where they were predicting the body position of the walking pig? I don't see how that is going to be done with stick on sensors. And yes, some implantable BCI devices have better capability. The point is to make this as cheap as possible... so that it doesn't require a brain surgeon to install. Because brain surgeons are expensive.

If he can't get cars to drive around a city autonomously, who is going to let him drive electrodes around their brain using automation?

Brain implant surgery is incredibly invasive and risky even with brain surgeons.

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#18

one feature i dont understand about neuralink is the promised transmission of thoughts. lets say i have a device that can encode activity of every neuron in my brain simultaneously. i think some variation of the thought "elephant," and the neuralink creates some digital representation of these signals. then i send that digital encoding to your brain's neuralink. how on earth are you going to think of ANY elephant, le…

There will likely need to be translation layer. Motor signals aren't necessarily tractable either, people can learn to walk again after even if the parts of the brain that govern walking are damaged.

The promise seems more that ideas can be transmitted with higher bandwidth. My signals -> word1, send word1 to you, word1-> your signals for word1 would be likely. Both of us would have to the system for word1, but if we could exchange it much faster than speaking, maybe even reading.

My issue with the system is that the line between reading and writing signals is very thin, and this these are hackable devices. Once the device learns a person's brain signals to make the legs run, it's easy to replay them on a bridge when facing sideways. There's no technology right now that's foolproof, and I'm not sure how any company can boast that it's secure enough — even if encryption is strong laws can still be enacted to force companies to hand over keys or install backdoors.

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#19

> Elon Musk preys on the hopeful and optimistic Yes but he also launches rockets into fucking space; that is to say, he may be selling snake oil, but he’s also selling legitimate magic beans.

This is a physics problem (well constrained) versus biology and even worse consciousness where we are pretty much at ground zero. His claims/promises about what will be possible are absurd eg being able to store and replay memories. Snake oil territory. A marketing event for his messianic persona so fanboys buy more Tesla stock.
Post reply on HN