Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday December 03 2022, @07:52PM   Printer-friendly

Elon Musk and Neuralink Announce... Nope Nope Nope nope Nope NOPE nope No.:

As a journalist, I'm supposed to approach news stories with an unbiased attitude. Just the facts, ma'am. But sometimes, that's not possible. When it comes to Elon Musk and Neuralink's desire to implant tech in our heads, I can only say NOPE. HECK NO. But hey, human trials are just six months away.

I will try, however, to get into the facts of the story with some seriousness. Neuralink, if you're unfamiliar, is one of Elon Musk's many companies. And in some ways, you could almost view it as a crossroads between those companies. If Tesla (his EV company) is a technology that we get into, and Twitter (his social media company) is a technology that broadcasts our thoughts, then Neuralink is a technology that gets into us and broadcasts our thoughts.

No seriously. The idea here is that Neuralink will implant an interface device into your skull—and into your brain—that can wirelessly connect to computers. You could then think at a computer to type out messages.

To start with, the company already mentioned releasing an iOS app that could Bluetooth connect to the "Link" device in your head to allow you "wireless" and "hands-free" control. Presumably, you'd be holding the phone while not using your fingers to type on it, so you could see that it worked correctly. That might be a boon to someone with disabilities that prevent the usual method of typing messages, but then again, other options already exist and don't require brain surgery.

At an event last night, Musk showed off the devices implanted in monkeys. The monkeys typed out phrases on a computer without using their hands or fingers. Now, to be clear, the monkeys didn't know what they were typing and didn't think the phrases themselves. Instead, they moved around a cursor to click on highlighted letters and words—they were guided to the phrase. But still, as Musk put it, they "telepathically" moved the cursor.

The company also showed that the monkey had already trained to sit under wireless chargers to charge the Link devices. Because that's right, now your head needs wireless charging too. Every night you'd put your watch on its wireless charger, your phone on its wireless charger, and your head in its wireless charger. That sounds amazing.

Getting the Link installed involves robotic surgery to remove a piece of your skull and insert 64 "hair-thin" threads into your brain. The LINK device, which resembles a stack of coins, would sit flush with your skull. Or, as Musk put it, "it's like replacing a piece of your skull with a smartwatch, for lack of a better analogy."

However, there have been many reports of animal cruelty levelled against Neuralink, including claims or high animal mortality rates, including:

So is this justified in the name of science, or is it something that for the time being we just don't need to do?


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by istartedi on Saturday December 03 2022, @08:36PM (11 children)

    by istartedi (123) on Saturday December 03 2022, @08:36PM (#1281042) Journal

    I'm given to understand that during the 19th century it was actually not unusual for people to just knock out all their adult teeth and go with dentures to avoid the long drawn-out pain of slowly losing them.

    Today nobody with healthy teeth considers this because we have dramatically better dentistry. Even root canals don't hurt that much (voice of experience) and are done before an implant or bridge is considered.

    Getting a brain implant to interact with the world seems like a 21st century denture, except you'd still have the analog of teeth; but it seems equally drastic. Isn't cutting in to healthy tissue a violation of the Hippocratic Oath? Is that even still a thing? You don't hear about it much these days.

    As TFS says, it makes sense for people who are already disabled. Something like this could be a godsend to quadraplegics. That leads me to think that if we ever go full cyborg, it'll be the handicapped who lead the way to some extent. They'll prove it out, and if being a cyborg turns out to be better than being a natural human, why not?

    Of course, you'll have to be disqualified from the Olympics but that's a long way off. I don't think I'll live to see it... unless I manage to catch the viability of some life-extending implant in my old age.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday December 03 2022, @08:59PM

    by Nuke (3162) on Saturday December 03 2022, @08:59PM (#1281048)

    during the 19th century it was actually not unusual for people to just knock out all their adult teeth and go with dentures ...

    20th century too, at least until the 1930s, although a dentist did take them out. It was regarded as a rite of passage into adulthood.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 03 2022, @11:41PM (6 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday December 03 2022, @11:41PM (#1281072)

    The Hippocratic oath has no legal standing, and more importantly is not recognized by insurance companies when determining eligibility for coverage.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 04 2022, @02:28PM (5 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 04 2022, @02:28PM (#1281133) Journal
      Insurance companies aren't doctors.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 04 2022, @03:31PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 04 2022, @03:31PM (#1281143)

        Insurance companies aren't doctors.

        In the US they sure like to think they are, second guessing every decision a doctor makes. They will say what procedures they think you should or shouldn't have and what medications you should or shouldn't take for example.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 04 2022, @07:17PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 04 2022, @07:17PM (#1281171) Journal

          In the US they sure like to think they are, second guessing every decision a doctor makes.

          That's their job. There's a huge conflict of interest with doctors that gets addressed by the purchaser of those services second-guessing the decisions.

          • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday December 05 2022, @04:31PM (1 child)

            by Freeman (732) on Monday December 05 2022, @04:31PM (#1281280) Journal

            I might have tended to agree with you at some point. That point is not now.

            I know a doctor who is part of a practice that went from one set of owners to another.

            The doctor wasn't notified when one of their patients was moved from one status to another. The insurance provider which is the new owner of the practice decided it would be best and just did it. The patient was unaware of what it meant and the only reason the doctor knew about it was that they noticed something odd.

            Insurance providers are not your friends, they are the hostile entity that want to spend as little money on you as possible. Which means keeping you out of the hospital. That seems like a laudable goal. Except that they use every trick to keep you out of the Hospital. As opposed to helping you get, for instance, life saving treatments that would cost them a very large amount of money. There's an even bigger conflict of interest when it comes to insurance companies making decisions for you, about your health.

            Now, the two groups, doctors, and insurance companies may not always have your best interest in mind. The biggest difference I see is that it's much easier to change who your doctor is, than it is to change who your insurance provider is. It's also much easier to sue a doctor than it is to sue a major corporation (most insurance companies).

            --
            Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2022, @10:40PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2022, @10:40PM (#1281336) Journal

              Insurance providers are not your friends, they are the hostile entity that want to spend as little money on you as possible.

              And doctors are hostile entities that want to spend as much money on you as possible. And you're a hostile entity who wants to stay as healthy as possible. In other words, welcome to conflict of interest. Everybody has them.

              Now, the two groups, doctors, and insurance companies may not always have your best interest in mind. The biggest difference I see is that it's much easier to change who your doctor is, than it is to change who your insurance provider is. It's also much easier to sue a doctor than it is to sue a major corporation (most insurance companies).

              I don't see that ease of change, but I allow that suing a major corporation is harder than seeing a doctor. It's also more profitable especially if you can get a class action going. They never just do it once.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday December 04 2022, @03:39PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday December 04 2022, @03:39PM (#1281146)

        Sadly, even the best doctors I have worked with are still tools of the insurance companies.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday December 04 2022, @05:09AM (2 children)

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 04 2022, @05:09AM (#1281096) Homepage Journal

    Even root canals don't hurt that much

    Correct. Local anaesthesia works. I was once so bored during a root canal that I fell asleep.

    • (Score: 2) by istartedi on Monday December 05 2022, @12:55AM (1 child)

      by istartedi (123) on Monday December 05 2022, @12:55AM (#1281200) Journal

      That's some next level chill. It may not hurt, but all the grinding sounds, vibration and awkward position (was yours not in back?) are going to keep most people awake.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.