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

121–130 of 160 posts

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#121

Post by pessimizer »

serf wrote: post #109
hinkley wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I feel the same way, but with the opposite conclusion. The older I get, the more larval and innocent teenagers and twenty-somethings seem.

I mistake 25 year-olds for 17 year olds. When I'm explaining something, sometimes I can't think of a historical or technological analogy that a 25 year old is likely to understand.

I see the mistakes in reasoning that they're blundering into with the best intentions (and utmost seriousness) that could have been avoided by reading a little more, thinking a little longer - then realize I hadn't read that stuff by my early twenties either, and could have easily made the same mistake. Then I remember some of the mistakes I did make, and wish they had been harder for me to have made.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#122

Post by kragen »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #56
at_a_remove wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct in that pain is a kind of information. I am going to be quite cross with you: you lack both medical experience and, well, imagination to understand why that information might be blocked by its recipient, why not all information is valuable. You have traded empathy for the quasi-magic Star Trek fix, so far in the future. You have forgotten the short-term in your look ahead to the long-term. Pain can be…

My incurable, rare genetic disorder is called atypical cystic fibrosis and I'm no longer in chronic pain and I no longer seem to be dying from it. I'm very sorry for what you are suffering. I stand by what I have said, though it's not worth arguing further on HN in this thread.

I am delighted to hear that you no longer seem to be dying from it. I hope you continue not dying for a long time.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#123

Post by tracker1 »

slibhb wrote: post #15
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.…

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.

I'm fine with that, assuming the devices, specifications, communication protocols etc are available... even if I (anyone) wouldn't be able to do it themselves, leaving it as an option for someone to take up is far better than left in the cold with an uncontrolled implant in one's body.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#124

Post by tracker1 »

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.

More likely they auction it off to the highest bidder.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#125

Post by tracker1 »

toss1 wrote: post #74
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.…

At the very least, ALL technology information, including all designs, source code, notes, studies, support logs, etc. is placed in escrow with the appropriate govt agency. If the company (or its successors) is unwilling/unable to provide continuous and effective support for the implants & associated tech, it is all open-sourced / becomes public domain. This provides at least the tech basis for minimal right to repair…

This is probably the singularly best option available... And should extend to any parties buying related IP from said company, that the culpability falls on them.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#126

Post by tracker1 »

linuxhansl wrote: post #65

Seems like the implants (hardware design and any software) need to be the equivalent of open source (in the GNU sense). Failing that, hardware designs, and the software - along with all necessary instructions - at least have to be put in escrow in the event that the company goes under. That would not immediately help, but at least there would be a fighting chance... As in this case to still be able to have someone fi…

I would accept that all details are CCd to a govt office to be released if the company folds and it's obligations are not continued by anyone internally. And that any company buying said company needs to demonstrate intent, motivation and financial ability to maintain said products.

Counter to the rest of technology where devices are literally designed to fail, this cannot be acceptable for embedded electronic devices.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#127

Post by pas »

bberenberg wrote: post #2

I wonder if closing a company should require some kind of process similar to bankruptcy. Then have an external party check to see impacted parties of the closure and provide some form of relief to stakeholders. In the case presented here maybe schematics for the device and proprietary software would be made available in perpetuity without support or code.

this is a coordination problem first and foremost, and every suggestion in the comments is suboptimal workaround for that.

the question is how much of the economy do we want to allocate to solving this.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#128

Post by enraged_camel »

bombolo wrote: post #94
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The software industry is fucked from the get-go - you sjould have the right to inspect all software im your body. After all, you have the right to read all patents. The idea that someone could have code bugs in my body, or a virus running on an implant, or put in functionality I didnt asl for, is basically about as abhorrent as slavery.

Security researchers have shown they can kill people with peacemakers if they get close enough to them.

Did you mean "pacemakers"?

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#129

Post by ratboy666 »

skissane wrote: post #91
haskellandchill wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methadone/Suboxone are opioids prescribed for addiction and are often free through low income programs. If they were made more accessible would that solve the crisis? I don’t think so. It’s hard to get to the stage where you accept them as a necessary solution and are still in the dangerous area of trying to taper with unknown quality substances. High quality government heroin/pills and supervised usage would likely…

> Methadone/Suboxone are opioids prescribed for addiction and are often free through low income programs. If they were made more accessible would that solve the crisis? I don’t think so. It is unsurprising that if a person is addicted to substance A, trying to substitute it with substance B, which has different properties (even if chemically related to A), doesn't always work. The real solution is to supply them, leg…

All I need to do is provide a heroin user fentanyl. We have tried heroin from the government, but the users want fentanyl. And, of course, the "black market" will not limit the amount the user gets.

Now, if you provide a "safe injection/usage site", that attracts the "black market" dealers. Seemingly, that also attracts other "undesired". Take, for example, the problem of homelessness where I live. It is actually difficult to remain unhoused. But, the care demands "no alcohol", "no drugs", "no violence". And a lot of customers do not like those terms and rather live on the street.

Government to blame? Do we not live in a democracy?

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#130

Post by littlestymaar »

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.

> He wants the patients to actually get their devices that make their lives bearable rather than these devices continuing to remain theoretical.

Yes he did say that, but it's a false dilemma fallacy. Startups with insufficient regulation don't get you “devices that would otherwise remained theoretical”, they give you FTX and Theranos.

If you want to build a health start-up but cannot uphold basics ethical principles (like: do not abandon your patients on their own if your business plan failed), you should just seek another market.

Post reply on HN