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

61–70 of 160 posts

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#61

Post by skissane »

heather45879 wrote: post #49
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…

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.

> The lengths they go to score another fix—stabbing people, robbing family members, selling themselves, etc.

Would they do that if the government just gave them the drug they are addicted to for free? I don’t think so.

Is the real problem then the addiction, or the public policy context in which the addiction exists?

Of course, I wouldn’t want to be addicted to opioids, even if the government gave them to me for free, due to the potential negative long-term health consequences, and also potential negative impacts on cognitive functioning which may in turn limit one’s educational/career/life prospects. But I don’t know if being in such a scenario, even if millions were in such a scenario, would be a “crisis” in the same sense that opioids currently are

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#62

Post by ryukafalz »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #57
ryukafalz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Marching boldly into a cyberpunk dystopia.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#63

Post by xen2xen1 »

plastiquebeech wrote: post #14
menzoic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who would ever buy a neural lace from a startup — or even an established company like Google who might just lose interest I'm sure they would if it helped relieve severe chronic pain. A limited period of relief is still better than zero relief.

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 character Garak on DS9 had a brain implant that was designed for resistance to torture. One day he just turned it on, and getting off it was like drug withdrawal. About the same for Louis Wu on Ringworld. "Wireheads" would die of starvation when their implant was turned on. Implants like this have been widely covered in fiction, and among the scariest drugs possible.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#64

Post by tick_tock_tick »

heavyset_go wrote: post #48
BurningFrog wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#65

Post by linuxhansl »

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 fix/use the software to calibrate the implant.

This should be standard regulation for approving such implants.

And this can and should be paired with the other suggestions here such as mandatory insurance, etc.

Edited for clarity

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#66

Post by heavyset_go »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #64
heavyset_go wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#67

Post by c3534l »

This seems like a problem long-term support contracts and medical insurance should be able to make a non-issue. Obviously, if someone undergoes an experimental medical treatment, the company performing the test should bear the responsibility of paying to have it removed should they go out of business or when the trial ends. If for some reason the company is unable to pay for corrective medical treatments, they should be required to have insurance. I'm not sure what the current rules and regulations are when it comes to this sort of stuff, but it really feels like all that's needed is a minor tweak so people do the sorts of things they should have been doing all along: planning financially and medically for the entire lifetime of the implant using the ethical rules and financial instruments we've already invented for dealing with risk and responsibility.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#68

Post by tick_tock_tick »

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.

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

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#70

Post by hinkley »

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.

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.

Post reply on HN