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

141–150 of 160 posts

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#141

Post by manholio »

littlestymaar wrote: post #140
manholio wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flawless in principle, but harmful slogans in practice because it fails to develop those ideas for the particular situation at hand. Sure, medical regulation should exist - I specifically mentioned the "primum non nocere" principle as the basis for that protection. Things like access to source code and right to repair, some guarantee the device can be removed and won't become actively harmful etc. But some of the spe…

That's because you assume that progress comes from millionaires investing cheap central-bank money into start-ups, which isn't how the world works. When you count on the collusion of gamblers and oligopolists to take socially positive gambles you're already stuck in a dead end.

You might have missed the part where I write: "as long as we as a society make no public concerted effort to cure these people and leave them to the mercy of the markets...". Everything follows.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#142

Post by littlestymaar »

manholio wrote: post #141
littlestymaar wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because you assume that progress comes from millionaires investing cheap central-bank money into start-ups, which isn't how the world works. When you count on the collusion of gamblers and oligopolists to take socially positive gambles you're already stuck in a dead end.

You might have missed the part where I write: "as long as we as a society make no public concerted effort to cure these people and leave them to the mercy of the markets...". Everything follows.

Even then, I'd rather let the big corp do their things being while regulated than letting reckless startups harming people in the process of trying to get a nice exit getting acquired by the same big corps. I've yet to see an example where the move fast, break things and kill people line of thinking from the SV produced some net social gains.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#143

Post by s1artibartfast »

tsimionescu wrote: post #118
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.

I think the biggest problem is that people desperate for a cure or even a bit of relief are the easiest possible prey for fraudsters peddling snake oil. You need extremely good regulation to be able to both allow innovative life-saving treatments to be tested and offered to those in need as soon as possible, but also to prevent too-good-to-be-true lies to be sold to the most vulnerable.

This is the system we already have, more or less.

People who get neruo-tech, get it from highly vetted companies with a plausible risk-benefit tradeoff.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#144

Post by s1artibartfast »

antifa wrote: post #133
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depriving people of desperate bets is arguably worse than letting them take it. Sure it might not work but you’re not the one who has to live with the consequences either way.

> but you’re not the one who has to live with the consequences either way There's a 99% all of us will have to live with the consequences of it if we don't die young.

Do you have to live with the consequences?

If someone gets a pain-killing implant or eye camera that goes off support after 5 years, how are you materially impacted for the worse?

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#145

Post by s1artibartfast »

antifa wrote: post #135
avalys wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course your proposal is not free, it would greatly increase the cost of these devices…

Sure the price will go up a little, but nowhere near the raw economic damage society at large will pay for people needing to get things like overheating implants removed.

This is not at all clear.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#146

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

stavros wrote: post #98
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that this document discusses some of the details of patient administered IV opiods in a hospital setting: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Provider-Enrollment-and-Certifi...

Right, but why limit a button that removes pain via direct brain stimulation?

To mitigate what was mentioned by the parent commenter: “whatever the negative impacts of overuse of such a button might be”

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#147

Post by bee_rider »

Jochim wrote: post #102
Mtinie wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I do think there’s a fundamental difference between sport (where we explicitly want to create a level playing field for fun) and the economy (where we’re competing with each other, but also against the universe).

We might find that there are some tasks where having people take on risky enhancements really helps “team humanity.” But certainly wouldn’t want “takes on risky enhancements” to become a trait required to get by.

I’d look at it as like minimum wage or OSHA. You could provide yourself a competitive advantage by working for less than minimum wage, or by being willing to work in an unsafe environment. But as a society, we’ve decided that engaging in that race to the bottom is not something we want to do.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#148

Post by LtWorf »

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.

> I think people deserve to control their own fate, disastrous consequences be damned

So you're ok with startups hiring homeless people as test subjects, because they are poor and will consent to basically anything?

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#149

Post by heavyset_go »

adolph wrote: post #119
heavyset_go wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of people on long-term treatment with opioids, like Suboxone, that almost eliminate the major problems concerning illicit opioid addiction. Plenty of people live normal lives while on Suboxone, where they might have been living on the streets and doing things no one wants to do in order to obtain illegal opioids. A lot, if not the majority, of those people used illegal drugs as coping mechanisms. Cri…

This comment almost reads like an ad, like everyone should take this magical substance that alleviates the problems of the world. https://www.drugs.com/suboxone.html

> everyone should take this magical substance that alleviates the problems of the world.

That's a weird claim considering no one said that.

There are currently two long-term maintenance opioids on the market: Suboxone and methadone.

Compared to committing crime in order to afford a $200+/day heroin or fentanyl habit, regularly overdosing and/or living on the street, yeah, these drugs can be life saving and let people live normal lives.

They of course have their downsides, they're still opioids and you're still addicted if you take them, but they're legal, pure and given under controlled conditions, which seems to eliminate 99% of the life threatening/ruining effects of illicit opioid addiction. People can live functional lives on them, which given the alternative, is pretty nice. It also shows that drug use, under safe conditions, doesn't necessarily result in a long-term crisis.

That said, the only people who should consider long-term maintenance opioids are people who are going to die or end up in prison if they continue taking heroin/fentanyl/etc. The idea that "everyone should take this magical substance" is a joke that no one has ever claimed.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#150

Post by heavyset_go »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #68
heavyset_go wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably not but who they chose to license it too might not be in the patients best interest.

I agree, but I think it's better than the alternative of it remaining with some patent troll to never be used in a productive way. If it remains in private hands, we don't get a say in what happens to it. If the government owns it, there's at least a chance that democratic processes can affect what happens to it and standards can be enforced that licensees must meet or adhere to.

There are plenty of NIH patents that are licensed, and while some of the companies they're licensed to make my skin crawl, they're at least being used productively, and not locked away to be used as a cudgel in a legal racket.

Post reply on HN