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

41–50 of 160 posts

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#41

Post by BurningFrog »

noobermin wrote: post #30
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.…

Or even better, if the company fails to fulfill their obligation, their patent and proprietary information is automatically obtained by the government. If they subsidize, there should be strings.

I see how that would help the government, but not how it would help the patients.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#42

Post by riwsky »

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.…

A close analogue is medical records; when HIPAA says patients should be able to access data for 10 years, that means “even if you go out of business”. Companies need to set up escrow that’d cover the cost of later retrieval.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#43

Post by heavyset_go »

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.…

> Without some solution like this, it's hard to imagine any non-essential neural implants really taking off: who would ever buy a neural lace from a startup — or even an established company like Google who might just lose interest — if there was no guarentee of patches and maintenance?

Desperate people who are willing to try anything to improve their lives.

Unscrupulous actors have been taking advantage of such people for millennia. You can see it happen today with the proliferation of quack doctors and remedies.

If your quality of life is so low, or you're facing death, taking a chance with experimental treatment might make sense in the moment.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#44

Post by [deleted] »

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.…

[deleted]

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#45

Post by bee_rider »

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.

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. So I’m not too worried.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#46

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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.

> Personally I like the idea that people can take their lives in their own hands

But rhey are not putting ut in rheir own hand, they are putting their luge unto rhe habds of a capricious and cruel, and occasionally fraudulent executive. Wonder, where did we see this play out before?

"renew subscribtuon or we turn off the implant"?

This will be a story of human rights abuses, debt ytades and endentured servitude.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#47

Post by drodgers »

icelancer wrote: post #28
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.…

>> Without some solution like this, it's hard to imagine any non-essential neural implants really taking off: who would ever buy a neural lace from a startup — or even an established company like Google who might just lose interest — if there was no guarentee of patches and maintenance? Speaking as someone who lived with chronic, daily, horrific pain for years before a surgery miraculously solved most of my problems…

Agreed. I meant 'essential' in a weak sense to include all high stakes medical cases, not just literally life and death.

The key thing is that we won't be able to get much benefit from neural implants as an enhancement technology without solving this problem; there's a ton of potential value which will be left on the table because people are reasonably afraid of these risks.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#48

Post by heavyset_go »

BurningFrog wrote: post #41
noobermin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even better, if the company fails to fulfill their obligation, their patent and proprietary information is automatically obtained by the government. If they subsidize, there should be strings.

I see how that would help the government, but not how it would help the patients.

Opening the proprietary information allows patients to take control of their health, and gives more options for doctors to help them, and for groups who might take up the helm of maintaining or removing implants from existing patients. It also allows iteration upon the design, so that it may be improved even if the original company was unable to improve it themselves.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#49

Post by heather45879 »

skissane wrote: post #16
plastiquebeech wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to be very careful with brain implants designed to relieve pain, lest we repeat the mistakes which brought us the opioid crisis. I've seen videos at BCI conferences of deep brain stimulation implants which provide the patient with a "happy button" to relieve chronic pain/anxiety/depression/etc. They seem to work very well in a clinical setting, but the patient reactions make it clear that there will be an eno…

The “opioid crisis” is a crisis because (1) it is easy to accidentally kill yourself with opioids; (2) drug criminalisation makes recreational drug use a lot less safe than it could be were it legal and regulated I doubt overuse of a “happy button” brain implant is going to kill you; and I doubt it is going to end up in a similar legal situation to recreational drugs. So, whatever the negative impacts of overuse of s…

Opiate crisis has less to do with people’s deaths and more about their addiction. The lengths they go to score another fix—stabbing people, robbing family members, selling themselves, etc.

It’s one thing to die from doing something stupid—it’s something else entirely to inflict pain and hardship on others.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#50

Post by ClumsyPilot »

_fat_santa wrote: post #4

There should be something similar to the FDIC for medical device manufacturers. If you're a customer of a bank and the bank goes under, the FDIC will step in to ensure continuity of operations and youre eventually taken up by another bank that buys the assets. For a company that makes medical devices, part of the bankrupcy process should be a 3rd party company coming in and taking over support and maintenance of the…

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.

Post reply on HN