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

51–60 of 160 posts

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#51

Post by mLuby »

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…

> I doubt overuse of a “happy button” brain implant is going to kill you

An addiction needn't kill you to destroy your life.

The better outcome for this technology is a user-settable mood regulator, not a user-pressable happy button.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#52

Post by heavyset_go »

adolph wrote: post #22
skissane wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Part of the longer term crisis comes from maladaptive coping mechanisms. Time will tell if a “happy button” is adaptive or not. My guess is that those tools which promote use ahead of outcome aren’t really fit for purpose. That said, I’d gladly stick my head in a microwave if it’s make a bad day more bearable.

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.

Criminalization, lack of supply, lack of purity of substances and lack of public health treatment are really what makes opioid addiction a life threatening/ruining problem. Things like Suboxone address all of those issues, and the successful lives of Suboxone patients say a lot.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#53

Post by ryukafalz »

taneq wrote: post #37
alerighi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the code of these devices should be 100% FOSS. Also the argument about defending intellectual property doesn't make sense: the software will probably do trivial things and be very simple, that is what you are selling is the hardware itself, and that is already covered by patents. So making the code public will allow people to find a replacement in the eventuality that the manufacturer stops supporting the produc…

> the software will probably do trivial things and be very simple, that is what you are selling is the hardware itself, and that is already covered by patents. How do you figure? In the case of something like an insulin pump or a pacemaker, sure, but once we start interfacing with nerves, especially once we start trying to communicate with them properly instead of just blunt-force stimulating a bunch of them, these d…

For an implant that important, especially one with any sort of network connectivity, I would especially want to be able to see the source code. The repeated very basic security vulnerabilities in Medtronic devices only reinforces this.

The more integral these implants get, the more this feels like "you're not legally permitted to know how this part of your body works".

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#54

Post by ClumsyPilot »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #21
skissane wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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!

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#55

Post by avalys »

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.…

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

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#56

Post by DoreenMichele »

at_a_remove wrote: post #31
DoreenMichele wrote: post #7

Pain is information. Instead of trying to manipulate the brain into not feeling it, we need to be figuring out the cause and fixing that. These ooh, shiny med tech solutions are likely on such shakey ground in part because the mindset that says "Hey, what can we build and sell to make the pain go away?" (instead of wondering what causes the pain and fixing that) is exactly the kind of thought process that turns a bli…

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.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#57

Post by ClumsyPilot »

ryukafalz wrote: post #53
taneq wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the software will probably do trivial things and be very simple, that is what you are selling is the hardware itself, and that is already covered by patents. How do you figure? In the case of something like an insulin pump or a pacemaker, sure, but once we start interfacing with nerves, especially once we start trying to communicate with them properly instead of just blunt-force stimulating a bunch of them, these d…

For an implant that important, especially one with any sort of network connectivity, I would especially want to be able to see the source code. The repeated very basic security vulnerabilities in Medtronic devices only reinforces this. The more integral these implants get, the more this feels like "you're not legally permitted to know how this part of your body works".

> The more integral these implants get, the more this feels like "you're not legally permitted to know how this part of your body works".

Imagone the human rights abuses possible with this technology. You could offer loans for digital organs. and if the paymwnt is late you turn organs off remotely!

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#59

Post by dgoldstein0 »

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…

It's a bit more complicated than that: the pharmaceutical companies underplayed the addictiveness and overplayed the benefits of opioids for years - so even under doctor supervision tons of folks got hooked, and many turned to the black market when they got cut off.

https://www.northpointwashington.com/blog/big-pharma-big-lie... is an interesting article about this in the context of Oxycontin. One detail I find particularly interesting is that Purdue pharma marketed it as a 12 hour pain killer when the data clearly only supported it being good for 8 hours... leading to increasingly stronger doses being prescribed rather that admit the 12hr guideline was wrong.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#60

Post by makeitdouble »

avalys wrote: post #55
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.…

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

The basic promise of the proposal seems to be that the technology is more of a convenience than a basic need, and/or people who really need it will have the cost dealt with by another entity.

This seems reasonable to me, and can be revised once we have a very good grasp of what actually happens with the technology after a few decades at least.

Post reply on HN