Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#61

Post by djohnston »

visarga wrote: post #40
djohnston wrote: post #8

one feature i dont understand about neuralink is the promised transmission of thoughts. lets say i have a device that can encode activity of every neuron in my brain simultaneously. i think some variation of the thought "elephant," and the neuralink creates some digital representation of these signals. then i send that digital encoding to your brain's neuralink. how on earth are you going to think of ANY elephant, le…

> how on earth are you going to think of ANY elephant, let alone my elephant? Both brains sensors are calibrated on the same images, then a common representation can be found as intermediary. It has been done with neural nets translating into a common intermediary language, thus needing N encoders/decoders instead of (N-1)^2 separate networks. In the easiest case it can be a simple linear transform to map one vector…

wouldnt you need a distinct transformation for every thought?

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#62

Post by me_me_me »

soco wrote: post #25
swiley wrote: post #15

If they handle the software for this in any way like the Tesla I wouldn’t want it near my head.

On the other hand, SpaceX runs rather professionally. It also has to, of course. My point is, they CAN deliver. Probably with Tesla they're just trying to get by with the least acceptable effort.

SpaceX is somewhat less impressive as a company than you might imagine.

They don't really have that much competition apart from Soyuz at the moment.

There is huge support in US to have a alternative to Soyuz.

Also NASA is prisoner of government corruption to the point where NASA operations are crippled in their capabilities - ie you get funding only if you keep unnecessary bureaucracy running for sake of some governor who won by promising space jobs.

SpaceX took all motivated and knowledgeable people gave them money to do what NASA was not allowed to do.

I am not trying to take away from their successes. The reusable modules landing in sync are amazing feat of engineering.

And SpaceX has actually working 'product', even more solid than Tesla (as a car its expensive, low volume, with a lot of issues compared to what we come to expect of a car).

Other stuff that Musk is trying to push are fairy tales, hyperloop is bad idea from the ground up. Boring company is boring. Its just bad implementation of a subway. And this neurolink is so far away from being anything usable, they are not even clear what it suppose to be. "Stick in some wires we will see what happens revolutionary tech TM."

But SpaceX business was waiting to happen. Musk was smart enough to throw money at it. So I wouldn't use spaceX as example of some godlike Musk abilities to create something out of nothing.

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#63

Post by nabla9 »

rini17 wrote: post #57
nabla9 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have problem with the two different narratives. Neuralink has two goals: 1) short term. better BMIs to to treat serious brain diseases with more bandwidth and more and better electrodes. I can see this happening. 2) long term. Invasive BMI for something other than treating diseases. Better electronics is not going to make invasive brain implants safe for consumer use, they just reduce certain risks. To solve (2) Ne…

Cochlear implants are established technology, and they also interface with nerves, just not with brain matter. Is this really so much harder?

The device stimulates cochlear nerve it's not brain surgery.

Just like with any other implant, the risk must justify the benefit. Cochlear implants have 3% rate for major complications, like life threatening meningitis or facial paralysis (caused by nerve damage). Potential benefit justifies the risk.

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#64

Post by etrautmann »

nabla9 wrote: post #51
vansul wrote: post #31

To me (neuro undergrad, comp sci masters), the demo seemed underwhelming but encouraging. As far as I can tell the tech was not doing anything particularly novel and the 'fitbit in your skull' analogy was personally uninspiring. [edit: the volume of reads /form factor is a step forward] That said, the demo was mostly for attracting talent - lots of money and a great team will likely get them somewhere. In terms of th…

I have problem with the two different narratives. Neuralink has two goals: 1) short term. better BMIs to to treat serious brain diseases with more bandwidth and more and better electrodes. I can see this happening. 2) long term. Invasive BMI for something other than treating diseases. Better electronics is not going to make invasive brain implants safe for consumer use, they just reduce certain risks. To solve (2) Ne…

Well articulated points - pushign back slightly regarding your breakthroughs on implants, there's good data to suggest that the size scale that Neuralink is now operating at does not elicit the same gliosis (reactive tissue growth) that electrodes larger than 15-20 µm do. The infection risk is heavily mitigated by the device being fully implantable, but you're absolutely right that there is some risk there.

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#65

Post by nabla9 »

etrautmann wrote: post #64
nabla9 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have problem with the two different narratives. Neuralink has two goals: 1) short term. better BMIs to to treat serious brain diseases with more bandwidth and more and better electrodes. I can see this happening. 2) long term. Invasive BMI for something other than treating diseases. Better electronics is not going to make invasive brain implants safe for consumer use, they just reduce certain risks. To solve (2) Ne…

Well articulated points - pushign back slightly regarding your breakthroughs on implants, there's good data to suggest that the size scale that Neuralink is now operating at does not elicit the same gliosis (reactive tissue growth) that electrodes larger than 15-20 µm do. The infection risk is heavily mitigated by the device being fully implantable, but you're absolutely right that there is some risk there.

Smaller size reduces the penetration trauma. I wonder how they are going to reduce chronic tissue response?

Even if the surgery does not result bacterial infection, insertion injury and the pretense of a foreign object often leads to persistent low level inflammation.

There is so much basic research questions that simple engineering is not going to solve.

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#66

Post by Balgair »

nabla9 wrote: post #63
rini17 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cochlear implants are established technology, and they also interface with nerves, just not with brain matter. Is this really so much harder?

The device stimulates cochlear nerve it's not brain surgery. Just like with any other implant, the risk must justify the benefit. Cochlear implants have 3% rate for major complications, like life threatening meningitis or facial paralysis (caused by nerve damage). Potential benefit justifies the risk.

To expand a bit here: Cochlear Implants are inserted into the cochlea, the curly organ in the ear that is responsible for hearing.

The other organs in the ear are the vestubular organs which give you a sense of balance.

The little wire in the implant has electrodes along it's length that shock the 'damaged' cells in the cochlea, bypassing how those cells sense sound, and just directly stimulating them.

The reason that it's a bit 'crude', is that the shocking is not specific to the nerves, it just shocks a bunch of those sensing cells. The reason for this is a bit involved and is due to the tonotopy (sound-map) of the cochlea.

The implantation is relatively simple for a trained surgeon. It can be done on small children.

https://www.cochlear.com/us/en/home/diagnosis-and-treatment/...

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#67

Post by Balgair »

ansible wrote: post #12

The demo was impressive. Did the author not see the part where they were predicting the body position of the walking pig? I don't see how that is going to be done with stick on sensors. And yes, some implantable BCI devices have better capability. The point is to make this as cheap as possible... so that it doesn't require a brain surgeon to install. Because brain surgeons are expensive.

Researchers have been doing movement prediction for a few years now (among other things). It's open source too: http://miniscope.org/index.php/Main_Page

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#68

Post by arijun »

CJefferson wrote: post #39
arijun wrote: post #29

I think the author calling Musk a conman is too strong a reaction to what goes on. I think Musk has a tendency to oversell already great technology with science fiction. Teslas are amazing cars but full self driving has been 6 months away for years now. Like the author, I would also be upset if I believed Musks promises of a brain-computer interface, only to see them dashed. But Neuralink is already an amazing improv…

As you say, Musk has been claiming self-driving is 6 months away for years now, yet whenever a crash happens they claim drivers must keep full attention. How is that not the definition of a con-man?

I’m not sure I follow... you and Musk agree FSD isn’t here now, so of course drivers must keep full attention.

As to him making claims about the future, perhaps he believes it. In any case, there is a history of his companies doing “the impossible”; economical reuse of rockets was considered by many to be hot gas by him. Conmen don’t usually deliver to that level.

Re: I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo

#69

Post by arijun »

mseidl wrote: post #45
CJefferson wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you say, Musk has been claiming self-driving is 6 months away for years now, yet whenever a crash happens they claim drivers must keep full attention. How is that not the definition of a con-man?

Plus the horrible quality of of the cars too.

I imagine that for people who bought the cars, the other characteristics outweigh build quality.

Separately, you might be interested to know that apparently the build quality has gone up quite a bit recently: https://youtu.be/TOrrdqje9Og

Post reply on HN