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

101–110 of 160 posts

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#101

Post by concordDance »

hinkley wrote: post #70
slibhb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two kinds of people will buy them: enthusiasts and people suffering from chronic conditions with nowhere else to turn. Similarly, you can buy unapproved, unresearched medication on the internet. You take on the risk. Personally I like the idea that people can take their lives in their own hands. As long as it's clear that they're opting out of the guiderails put into place for those of us who are more cautious.

If we were a lot better about not letting your teens and twenties so heavily define your story arc as a human, maybe. But without some sort of insurance and/or escrow program any implant than gives you any kind of edge will be accepted by people too young to really understand the consequences. Especially the sorts of people who think they'll dead by 30 so side effects that show up in your 40's are no big deal.

What kind of consequences are people in their 20s too young to understand? In democracies we generally assume those 21+ can understand all the issues, which is why we let them vote.

This seems sorta like not letting 80 year olds have email because they don't understand it and might get scammed.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#102

Post by Jochim »

Mtinie wrote: post #75
bee_rider wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting people take their lives into their own hands is fine for now, while neural implants are largely useless for enhancement. If there came a day when a neural implant provided, say, a massive competitive advantage when working, we’d probably want to regulate. But I mean widespread neural enhancements are probably as far away as… maybe not post scarcity society, but at least “I can get by on basic income” society.…

If it means those of us who compete daily with our brains have an opportunity for an advantage—or at least parity—I’m all for it. I don’t expect it will happen within my lifetime but it would be nice for those who follow.

I'm interested in whether you feel the same way about drug use in competitive sports?

My assumption from your position on cognitive enhancement is that you'd support a separate category where your allowed to dope as much as you'd like?

Do we have any duty as a society to dis-incentivise people from pushing that too far?

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#103

Post by concordDance »

heavyset_go wrote: post #66
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said the government now owns the patent your responding like they said the patent is now voided and the technology is open to anyone.

Do you think the government is going to sit atop of a giant pile of patents like a fire-breathing dragon protecting its hoard? That's what private companies currently do, and by relinquishing them to the government, the public has some say in what happens to them.

> Do you think the government is going to sit atop of a giant pile of patents like a fire-breathing dragon protecting its hoard?

Very likely unless some distribution or maintenance mechanism gets funded.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#104

Post by concordDance »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #54
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

lets deliver digital rights management inside your body. Maybe also if you pay a premium subscribtion the happy button can be pressed more often!

As long as patients can decide between the DRM version and the equal cost non-DRM version this may be OK.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#105

Post by Jensson »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #54
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

lets deliver digital rights management inside your body. Maybe also if you pay a premium subscribtion the happy button can be pressed more often!

More likely: It releases happy stuff when you see the right politician, and stop when you see the wrong. Imagine that sort of manipulation at scale and you get the future of brain implants.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#106

Post by puchatek »

Mtinie wrote: post #75
bee_rider wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting people take their lives into their own hands is fine for now, while neural implants are largely useless for enhancement. If there came a day when a neural implant provided, say, a massive competitive advantage when working, we’d probably want to regulate. But I mean widespread neural enhancements are probably as far away as… maybe not post scarcity society, but at least “I can get by on basic income” society.…

If it means those of us who compete daily with our brains have an opportunity for an advantage—or at least parity—I’m all for it. I don’t expect it will happen within my lifetime but it would be nice for those who follow.

In Homo Deus, Harari mentions research by DARPA (?) on a focus-enhancing helmet. This was reported some years ago already and the journalist who wrote the piece had experienced the effects first have in a sniping simulation. So to some degree the tech is already here.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#108

Post by idrios »

What is the actual failure mode of these companies? The article cites ATI, Nuvectra, Second Sight, Stimwave.. were these companies expecting govt grants that never arrived? Did they overestimate how much patients would pay for these implants? Misjudge how much they could bring prices down? Were their devices one-and-done treatments so they had no renewable income?

Some of these companies were making truly life-changing tech that only exists because they made it exist. It's disheartening to read about them going under.

As for how to handle ongoing support for the patients of companies that do go under, the article already says all my thoughts on it.

> One proposal is that neurotechnology companies should ensure that there is money available to support the people using their devices in the event of the company’s closure. How this would best be achieved is uncertain. Suggestions include the company setting up a partner non-profit organization to manage funds to cover this eventuality; putting aside money in an escrow account; being obliged to take out an insurance policy that would support users; paying into a government-supported safety network; or ensuring the people using the devices are high-priority creditors during bankruptcy proceedings.

> Realeve’s interim chief executive Donato thinks that it will take legislation to convince investors or shareholders in companies to take on the expense of a safety net. “Unless, and until, the governments force it on us,” he says, “I’m not sure companies will do it on their own.”

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#109

Post by serf »

hinkley wrote: post #70
slibhb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two kinds of people will buy them: enthusiasts and people suffering from chronic conditions with nowhere else to turn. Similarly, you can buy unapproved, unresearched medication on the internet. You take on the risk. Personally I like the idea that people can take their lives in their own hands. As long as it's clear that they're opting out of the guiderails put into place for those of us who are more cautious.

If we were a lot better about not letting your teens and twenties so heavily define your story arc as a human, maybe. But without some sort of insurance and/or escrow program any implant than gives you any kind of edge will be accepted by people too young to really understand the consequences. Especially the sorts of people who think they'll dead by 30 so side effects that show up in your 40's are no big deal.

The older I get the older the age of 'irresponsible youth' becomes. Now it's past the twenties..?

I think people deserve to control their own fate, disastrous consequences be damned. That's part of life, and always has been. To pretend that we need to protect against that type of insecurity is absurd.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#110

Post by beebeepka »

concordDance wrote: post #100
bombolo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your solution is to just treat patients like garbage and shrug at them when your startup goes bankrupt? You want to protect overly rich VCs instead of the patients? Virtue signalling? I call this "not being like dr Mengele"… if you think that's virtue signalling you are just a bad person.

I believe he's clearly indicated that he think this is in the best interests of the patients, not the VCs. Not sure if it's a reading comprehension issue or if you're just trying to score points. He wants the patients to actually get their devices that make their lives bearable rather than these devices continuing to remain theoretical.

I wouldn't be so sure. I read manholio's posts multiple times and their position it still unclear to me. "Immoral to the investors" but some - I believe feinted - concern for the people.

I am having a hard time treating investments as oxygen masks on airplanes.

Post reply on HN