I'd never buy a medical device like that from Google.
The human cost of neurotechnology failure
71–80 of 160 posts
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#72I 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.…
This sounds right. People in desperate situations shouldn't feel forced to make high risk bets that could put them in a worse situation down the road. Especially in the US where financial security and health are so closely tied to each other.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#73Seems 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 fi…
The design, documentation and especially source code should only be ever made available to entities with the knowledge and skill to maintain these implants safely and purely for the benefit of the users. If any random Joe Garage Hacker can get the source and devise patches for implant devices, the result will be an endless hellish nightmare for whoever has these implants in them. It'd be the IoT mess all over again, but with people's bodies, not just their homes.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#74I 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.…
At the very least, ALL technology information, including all designs, source code, notes, studies, support logs, etc. is placed in escrow with the appropriate govt agency. If the company (or its successors) is unwilling/unable to provide continuous and effective support for the implants & associated tech, it is all open-sourced / becomes public domain.
This provides at least the tech basis for minimal right to repair/remove to other physicians.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#75Earlier 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.
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.…
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.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#76Seems 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 fi…
The design, documentation and especially source code should only be ever made available to entities with the knowledge and skill to maintain these implants safely and purely for the benefit of the users. If any random Joe Garage Hacker can get the source and devise patches for implant devices, the result will be an endless hellish nightmare for whoever has these implants in them. It'd be the IoT mess all over again,…
That's just an argument for why it should be open source from the beginning: let bugs be spotted early and be sure the designs are as secure as we can make them before somebody gets saddled with one in their skin for life. Security through obscurity is not the answer.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related: https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete > Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete And Unsupported It's for this reason that I believe all medical implant firmware and required associated software should be FOSS. Nobody should ever lose the use of something embedded in their body because a company goes out of business.
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…
It depends on the device, but it's not necessarily true that the software behind it is trivial. Interfacing with the human body is tricky and knowing how to use the hardware to make the most of the limited set of electrodes or whatever interface the device has is complex.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is - there will be no FDA approved neural implants from start-ups. The government would never approve it. If you want to use it before approval, well, that's on you then.
There already is, one example is the VNS implant.
The VNS Therapy received FDA approval in 1997....
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmedt.2021.6965...
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#79Earlier 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.
> 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.
Movie: Repo Men
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#80I 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.…
This sounds right. People in desperate situations shouldn't feel forced to make high risk bets that could put them in a worse situation down the road. Especially in the US where financial security and health are so closely tied to each other.
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.