71–80 of 357 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> taking away their ability to participate in society first, then selling it back to the richest of them is an ingenious business approach. That's not what is happening here. These tools (Neuralink and others) enable people who are disabled to participate more in society.
Yes, this is the selling back part. The taking away is currently happening in the White House and at the Broccoli aisle.
Am I the only one a bit disturbed by this whole communication ? I mean, we all know helping disabled is not the end-game objective of neuralink. And right now, from a very cynical point of view, disabled people constitute a large reservoir of cobayes and free marketing for Neuralink I don’t know how much has been invested in R&D on Neuralink, but I doubt we have ever invested that much money in any other technology t…
> we all know helping disabled is not the end-game objective of neuralink. Can you tell us more what you surmise we all think is the end-game objective?
Am I the only one a bit disturbed by this whole communication ? I mean, we all know helping disabled is not the end-game objective of neuralink. And right now, from a very cynical point of view, disabled people constitute a large reservoir of cobayes and free marketing for Neuralink I don’t know how much has been invested in R&D on Neuralink, but I doubt we have ever invested that much money in any other technology t…
> we all know helping disabled is not the end-game objective of neuralink. Can you tell us more what you surmise we all think is the end-game objective?
This kind of behavior is not befitting of a company that will need to cultivate an incredible amount of trust from customers before they buy into the idea of a brain implant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is more than one organization/company in the world working on human-computer assistive interfaces for the paralyzed. For instance: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230824/Brain-computer-in... https://news.brown.edu/articles/2012/05/braingate2 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.037719 If you google "BCI brain computer interface paralyzed" you will find a wealth of researchers and organizati…
Sure, but have any made as much progress as Neuralink? Not a rhetorical, genuinely asking as someone who doesn't know much about this field. Though, even if others have, isn't this kind of technological achievement something to be lauded regardless of who owns the company that did it?
Shaking President Obama's hand with "touch feedback" in 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itkgmMLi7l4
Eating a taco in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjfA78FuZM
Robot arm in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjFr0rnbT24
Playing Final Fantasy 14 with a BCI in 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjNHkRH0Dus
Non-invasive robot arm control in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eOSlzDdOpg
Non-invasive robot arm control in 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asDwupMbE2I
Speech/voice generation in 2024: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8frSsvwPp4
The technology to do these sorts of things as proof-of-concepts is fairly old. You do not see widespread deployment because brain surgery betas are not a very good idea. There is insufficient evidence the technology is mature or safe enough to support full-scale deployment. A common class of problem being brain scarring on the invasive insertions that reduce efficacy of the implant requiring further damaging brain surgery to remove the implant in a few years.
When you have insufficiently mature technology for deployment you optimize for research. For that, you only need enough to saturate your researchers with data and well-designed tests which is usually achieved with only a small number of units. This is similar to the reason why you only need a few prototype cars even when you are going to make millions of them. If you are not deploying, then you do not need a lot to saturate your design/development process and making a bunch of each half-baked version prior to the final release candidate is a waste of time.
When the technology is minimally adequate, then you scale up. In contrast, deploying middling quantities of proof-of-concept versions as if that "tests" anything is a recipe for a slow-burning disaster. Nobody else is "trying to compete" on who can deploy more because competing on who can deploy more half-baked brain implants would be unethical.
I wish I could trust this.
until we have a solution to the problem that is Elon Musk, and potential future Elon Musks, this type of technology can only be a net negative to society.
I very violently recoil from any of Musk's ventures these days. Im sure there are some very smart and talented people working at Neuralink. They should go work for someone else as their boss has shown himself to be a revolting person and the kind of leader who seeks to actively harm people who inconvenience him. This kind of behavior is not befitting of a company that will need to cultivate an incredible amount of tr…
Am I the only one a bit disturbed by this whole communication ? I mean, we all know helping disabled is not the end-game objective of neuralink. And right now, from a very cynical point of view, disabled people constitute a large reservoir of cobayes and free marketing for Neuralink I don’t know how much has been invested in R&D on Neuralink, but I doubt we have ever invested that much money in any other technology t…
> we all know helping disabled is not the end-game objective of neuralink. Can you tell us more what you surmise we all think is the end-game objective?
Generally speaking, the demo is always about finding the green ball on top of a red cube, or the person who went missing in a land slide, but what sells it is detecting and aiming at the dissident hiding under a truck.
And isn't it weird how "think of the children" is always ridiculed but "think of the paralyzed etc." is just fine? I've seen it countless times in the last decades. Just recently when I said on here I want "AI" art to be marked as "AI" made and someone claimed I don't care about the people who have Parkinson's and can't hold a brush, but wouldn't answer why we can't mark it anyway. It's not the people with Parkinson's that want to pass of their creations as hand-made. They're just getting used.
Sure, paralyzed people would love to be able to control a cursor with their mind etc., but even more than that they don't want cuts to social programs, that enable them a dignified life beyond "making them as functional as a healthy person", to allow tax cuts for the super rich. They want friends to have time for them instead of working 3 jobs, that sort of stuff. But Musk and his spiritual brethren are gleefully moving in the opposite direction, as fast and ruthlessly as they can.
So I say this particular doctor is three butchers in a trench coat. I can't prove it, because I can't read minds, but nobody else can either, and this is the "bet" I'm going with. Vulnerable and sick people can only have things that would a.) help super rich people with the same conditions and b.) enable more persecution and exploitation, and an easier discard of undesirable, unproductive or rebellious members of society.
I very violently recoil from any of Musk's ventures these days. Im sure there are some very smart and talented people working at Neuralink. They should go work for someone else as their boss has shown himself to be a revolting person and the kind of leader who seeks to actively harm people who inconvenience him. This kind of behavior is not befitting of a company that will need to cultivate an incredible amount of tr…
He has access to a lot of money so maybe these people working on it should continue to work for him. Maybe he wants to charge an outrageous fee for it but ultimately at some point down the road if he can do it others will to and it will be common place for those who need it and probably common place for those who don't need it but want it.