I wonder how hard it would be for an LLM interpreting the neural signals to perform a convincing simulation of speaking for the paralyzed person while doing things they don't actually want, or after they've suffered a loss of mental function that leaves them not really wanting anything. Like the autism scandals surrounding Facilitated Communication. Not that I think that's what is going on currently.<p>This Greg Egan short story is a useful intuition pump about the possibilities. Not recommended for children. Or before trying to sleep. <a href="https://philosophy.williams.edu/files/Egan-Learning-to-Be-Me.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://philosophy.williams.edu/files/Egan-Learning-to-Be-Me...</a><p>It would be great if instead of "a clinical trial to <i>demonstrate that</i> the Link is safe and useful" we could have a clinical trial to <i>determine whether or not</i> it is.
> Noland suffered a spinal cord injury in a swimming accident and became paralyzed below his shoulders. Noland spent most of his days in bed. His primary digital device was a tablet which he controlled using a mouth-held stylus (mouth stick). The mouth stick not only caused discomfort and fatigue after prolonged use, but it also had to be put in place by a caregiver<p>> He is now able to control a cursor with his thoughts to browse the internet, play games, and continue his educational journey with greater independence.<p>Once reliable and cheap, the tangible difference this tech is going to make to people's lives is pretty wild.<p>Curious to know how accurate the cursor movements and clicks are. For example, here he is playing polytopia: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgY70ZWCL1g" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgY70ZWCL1g</a><p>In polytopia, a misclick can be about as frustrating/costly as a mouseslip in chess (when you move a piece to the wrong square by mistake).
Not mentioned at all is the failure rate, which back in May was reported by Ars to be 85% with the first patient, Noland. [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/05/neuralink-to-implant-2nd-human-with-brain-chip-as-75-of-threads-retract-in-1st/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/05/neuralink-to-implant...</a>
Between 2018 and 2022 "the company has tested on and killed at least 1,500 animals — over 280 sheep, pigs, and monkeys, as well as mice and rats." [0]<p>0: <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/12/11/23500157/neuralink-animal-testing-elon-musk-usda-probe?t" rel="nofollow">https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/12/11/23500157/neura...</a>
Glad to see neuralink didn’t give up on their sensationalism.<p>“telepathy” gtfo, they’re trying to give their brainchips marketing hype synonyms like how Altman calls ChatGPT AI when really, it’s not artificial intelligence, it’s just ML. But ML sounds a whole lot less exciting in the marketing pitch.
Lex Fridman's interview with Noland and the doctors is a marathon 8.5 hours, but I highly recommend it for a deep dive into the process and results.[1]<p>[1] <a href="https://youtu.be/Kbk9BiPhm7o?si=g-MqcUcmS9sZhVdc" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/Kbk9BiPhm7o?si=g-MqcUcmS9sZhVdc</a>
Isn't the main showstopper issue to solve for brain implants is scarring response or something similar? That is when body responds to the implant and surrounds electrodes with some sort of tissue reducing its effectiveness. Has Neuralink made any advancements in that area?
So - what about implant scar tissue? How do they avoid it? How do they reintegrate connections if the implant has to move on? I dont want sob-stories, i want links to patents about avoiding inflamation.
The videos are remarkable. He moves like a person on a touchpad, rather than a quadriplegic. Incredible technology. The joy it is going to bring to so many is going to be wonderful to see.
Am I the only one a bit disturbed by this whole communication ?<p>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<p>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 to provide autonomy to the disabled.<p>And it is not perfectly clear to me that, for the sole prospect of helping paralysed people, Neuralink is the best way to go. It sure is the one that looks the coolest, but it’s going to be very expensive, hard to fix when something goes wrong, and it is also hard to trust. Those issues do not seem to be avoidable<p>Don’t get me wrong, I admire the huge QoL gain for the three patients. As individuals, they sure benefited from this. Idk if the same is true of the disabled as a social group
Quick summary of the comments:<p>* Everyone hates Elon<p>* For most this is enough to hate neuralink.<p>* 15ish+% think that embedding stuff in your brain from any company is a bad idea(TM)<p>* 5-ish% think this is not worth working on at all, or not worth the animal / human research costs<p>* In the know folks point out that tech like this has been around for roughly 10 years, but research hasn’t progressed past the point where brain injury isn’t a major risk -> this is too early<p>I don’t read anything here about human autonomy; each of the guys written about have my utmost respect for not just committing suicide — they must be incredibly tough, persistent and positive humans, full stop. The idea that they can’t or shouldn’t be able to weigh the risks and benefits of tech like this feels infantilizing, in the worst way - infantilizing from people who have full mobility.<p>At any rate, I applaud a company trying to help people like this, EVEN IF their long term goal is an ad-supported BCI (although TBH Elon’s always had significantly better revenue ideas than ads), and I applaud the first few folks willing to risk their health to get access to a better life, and help people down the line from them.
UFO abductees report telepathy regularly, as the default mode. UFO witnesses often report they "feel" something odd, that the UFO somehow "sees" them. And pretty much every story is both the same and extremely odd. There have been claims by those in the field implicating an "over-connection of neurons between the head of the caudate and the putamen".
Here's a post about an amazing piece of technology that is being created for helping people in dire conditions and the only thing being discussed in here is how much of a bad person is the owner of the company researching said technology.
Now, I'm not a US citizen so I have way less stakes in that kind of discussion but I have to say, I find it disgusting how one of my favorite online forum have become a den for political activists.
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.<p>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.
I am extremely unlikely to ever allow anything even vaguely related to Elon Musk to implant something in my brain, or even to wear as completely noninvasive "through the skin" helmet or headband-like sensing device. Nevermind something with him as a founder.
If the whole slave simulation with humanoid robots does not work for Elon Musk and his peers, maybe we will see W40K-like servitors, where they take the people the billionaire class deems subhuman and convert them into human drones.
Imagine the fun 4chan will have when they find Musk's master keys and commence to 24-7 rickroll some paralyzed person.<p>A Year of Rick Astley (hey it almost rhymes)
Musk is a great example of how to ruin ones legacy. At this point, no matter what he does, how his companies perform, or even if this implant gives people back control of their bodies. Nothing will rid his work of the taint.<p>It's tragic in a way. If he stuck to same playbook as practiced by many other early tech billionaires, spending his life on investing, philanthropy, himself and family, the world would probably not have things like common reusable rockets, widespread EV adoption or massive satellite constellations.<p>His willingness to pour money, and ability get others to pour their money, into various extremely risky ventures, is what made all of that possible. Eventually it would happen anyway, but probably much later.<p>But I suspect, that very same personality traits that enabled him to do this, are responsible for his current state. Over the years he has lost his self control, to the point that he looks almost childish. Handful of years ago, he opposed people he now works with.<p>He's now undermining his own companies, with his actions. Even people like Murdoch or Thiel look better in comparison. Not because of what they do, but because they are less visible.<p>Everything he has ever done, will now be viewed in much worse light. His reputation, sabotaged by the only person who could accomplish that feat. Himself.
I've been out of live neural recordings for about 3 years. While this is neat, it's my recollection that this is dated science...with better PR.