What to Know About Neuralink, Elon Musk’s Brain-Computer Interface Project

[GenesisNemesis]

https://gizmodo.com/what-to-know-about-n...1844751895

Elon Musk is set to make an announcement about Neuralink, a company designing brain-computer interface technology, on Friday, August 28. It sounds like science fiction, but research in this area has progressed rapidly in recent years, though we’re still far from being able to send emails with our minds. Unlike Musk’s other famous ventures, SpaceX and Tesla, however, Neuralink will be vastly more limited in terms of how fast it can innovate and push out consumer products. Here’s what you should know about the project, including what’s theoretically possible, how skeptical you should be, and who else is designing brain-computer interfaces.

Elon Musk is a piece of shit (I have to start every thread about Musk with this). But, I am interested in this technology. Would you get a brain chip if it could enhance your cognition?

[Thumpalumpacus]

No.

[GenesisNemesis]

No.

I suppose there are a lot of reasons not to get one, even if it could do that- for example, it would make personal achievement essentially meaningless. There's something special about learning an instrument or any other skill with just your own brain. If you have a chip that makes you learn faster, it's less your own effort.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No.

I suppose there are a lot of reasons not to get one, even if it could do that- for example, it would make personal achievement essentially meaningless. There's something special about learning an instrument or any other skill with just your own brain. If you have a chip that makes you learn faster, it's less your own effort.

There's that. There's also the challenge of managing two streams of thought rather than one; I have enough problems with one.

And the tech sector hasn't been shy about sneaking code in when we're not looking. I certainly wouldn't trust Musk to not do that. I get pissed-off enough that Microsoft won't let me shut off automatic updates to Win10, even though they say it can be done. I've done all that stuff, and still get shutdown-update requirements. Now imagine that in your head.

[Alan V]

Would you get a brain chip if it could enhance your cognition?

I would be interested in a library implant and an auxilliary memory too.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

Would you get a brain chip if it could enhance your cognition?

I would be interested in a library implant and an auxilliary memory too.  

Pay a little extra money and get a good antivirus.

[GenesisNemesis]

Would you get a brain chip if it could enhance your cognition?

I would be interested in a library implant and an auxilliary memory too.  

Pay a little extra money and get a good antivirus.

Imagine how much more effective disinformation could be if it could be downloaded directly into the brain.

[Bucky Ball]

I doubt that the general state of research in nanotechnology and biological interfaces
is advanced enough at this point to support what he thinks he's going to try to do.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would be interested in a library implant and an auxilliary memory too.  

Pay a little extra money and get a good antivirus.

Imagine how much more effective disinformation could be if it could be downloaded directly into the brain.

... or some guy holding yourself hostage in an act of ransomware.

[GenesisNemesis]

Pay a little extra money and get a good antivirus.

Imagine how much more effective disinformation could be if it could be downloaded directly into the brain.

... or some guy holding yourself hostage in an act of ransomware.

Well, that's why you store your back-up self in the Cloud.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

https://gizmodo.com/what-to-know-about-n...1844751895

Elon Musk is set to make an announcement about Neuralink, a company designing brain-computer interface technology, on Friday, August 28. It sounds like science fiction, but research in this area has progressed rapidly in recent years, though we’re still far from being able to send emails with our minds. Unlike Musk’s other famous ventures, SpaceX and Tesla, however, Neuralink will be vastly more limited in terms of how fast it can innovate and push out consumer products. Here’s what you should know about the project, including what’s theoretically possible, how skeptical you should be, and who else is designing brain-computer interfaces.

Elon Musk is a piece of shit (I have to start every thread about Musk with this). But, I am interested in this technology. Would you get a brain chip if it could enhance your cognition?

And allow M$, Google, etc... to send their fucking advertisements directly to my auditory/visual nerves? Fuck! That! SHIT!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, that's why you store your back-up self in the Cloud.

[Little Lunch]

I've worked with a lot of non-verbal people who have very low IQ's.
I'd like to see something that could help us communicate better.
I'd like to be able to experience what they are feeling to get a better idea of how to make them more comfortable.

[Alan V]

Would you get a brain chip if it could enhance your cognition?

I would be interested in a library implant and an auxilliary memory too.  

Pay a little extra money and get a good antivirus.

I'd pass on the internet connection.  No offense, but I wouldn't want other people in my head.  

[SYZ]

I can only see Musk as a wealthy dreamer, repeatedly overreaching his skill set, and selling
expensive shit to greedy investors and a gullible public.  His pie-in-the-sky ideas are what's
made him a poster boy for the technology groupies who have more money than sense.

And the laughable pricing of his boys' toy car are why it's not selling well in Australia:



Musk has NO idea of the vehicle market in Australia.  The Renault Zoe is $47,490, the Hyundai Ioniq is $48,970,  and
the Nissan Leaf is $49,990  (all plus on-road costs).

Tesla isn't even a blip on the sales graph:



     

—And to answer the question would I get Musk's proposed brain chip inserted?  A very firm NO.
It's an absurd notion, and ignores one of the most salient properties that all computers are incapable
of possessing, and that's logic.  Until (or if) we can duplicate human logic into an electronic device, we
will never have true "artificial intelligence" or AI.   Thankfully, I'll not see Musk's brain chip in my lifetime.

[Dānu]

It would depend on the details. If it could be safe, effective, useful, and have few serious potential side-effects, then I might.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd pass on the internet connection.  No offense, but I wouldn't want other people in my head.  

Who would write the coding on your chip?

[Bcat]

No for the reasons Thump mentioned.

[tomilay]

No.

I suppose there are a lot of reasons not to get one, even if it could do that- for example, it would make personal achievement essentially meaningless. There's something special about learning an instrument or any other skill with just your own brain. If you have a chip that makes you learn faster, it's less your own effort.

One could make that same argument with any tool though.  The only difference is the interface.

[tomilay]

—And to answer the question would I get Musk's proposed brain chip inserted?  A very firm NO.
It's an absurd notion, and ignores one of the most salient properties that all computers are incapable
of possessing, and that's logic.  Until (or if) we can duplicate human logic into an electronic device, we
will never have true "artificial intelligence" or AI.   Thankfully, I'll not see Musk's brain chip in my lifetime.

It depends on how it's used.  Some people may have issues with such ventures when used purely for enhancements.  But I believe they could also be used to solve some real world problems.  For instance if I were blind and the only fix is a chip implant that can help my brain process vision, it seems like a no brainer.

[Dānu]

No.

I suppose there are a lot of reasons not to get one, even if it could do that- for example, it would make personal achievement essentially meaningless. There's something special about learning an instrument or any other skill with just your own brain. If you have a chip that makes you learn faster, it's less your own effort.

There's that. There's also the challenge of managing two streams of thought rather than one; I have enough problems with one.

And the tech sector hasn't been shy about sneaking code in when we're not looking. I certainly wouldn't trust Musk to not do that. I get pissed-off enough that Microsoft won't let me shut off automatic updates to Win10, even though they say it can be done. I've done all that stuff, and still get shutdown-update requirements. Now imagine that in your head.

The same arguments could be applied to electronic pacemakers, and a whole host of assistive technologies from wheelchairs to speech-enabled interfaces. I don't know exactly what the underlying reasons are, but it suggests that your argument is fundamentally weak. Different standards are applied to different things. Arguing that it would be a bad technology if a certain set of standards were applied to it may not hold if those standards aren't likely to be applied to the actual thing itself. If NASA applied the same standards as a mechanic or fast food worker, their missions would be failing left and right. If we accepted the same level of cleanliness and sterilization of surgical instruments and insertable medical devices as we do in our kitchen or bathroom, people would be dying of iatrogenic sepsis left and right. If voting machines were constructed and programmed according to the same rigors as the free apps on your phone, we could not guarantee anything close to reliable election results. Your objection, to me, seems fundamentally unsound.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The same arguments could be applied to electronic pacemakers, and a whole host of assistive technologies from wheelchairs to speech-enabled interfaces.  I don't know exactly what the underlying reasons are, but it suggests that your argument is fundamentally weak.  Different standards are applied to different things.  Arguing that it would be a bad technology if a certain set of standards were applied to it may not hold if those standards aren't likely to be applied to the actual thing itself.  If NASA applied the same standards as a mechanic or fast food worker, their missions would be failing left and right.  If we accepted the same level of cleanliness and sterilization of surgical instruments and insertable medical devices as we do in our kitchen or bathroom, people would be dying of iatrogenic sepsis left and right.  If voting machines were constructed and programmed according to the same rigors as the free apps on your phone, we could not guarantee anything close to reliable election results.  Your objection, to me, seems fundamentally unsound.

The heart is a mechanical pump. The brain is itself a computer of sorts. I think your comparison doesn't wash because it ignores this important qualitative difference. You argue for different standards, yet would treat the brain the same as any other organ in the body. It isn't the same.

If you trust the tech sector that much, great. I don't.

[Dānu]

The same arguments could be applied to electronic pacemakers, and a whole host of assistive technologies from wheelchairs to speech-enabled interfaces.  I don't know exactly what the underlying reasons are, but it suggests that your argument is fundamentally weak.  Different standards are applied to different things.  Arguing that it would be a bad technology if a certain set of standards were applied to it may not hold if those standards aren't likely to be applied to the actual thing itself.  If NASA applied the same standards as a mechanic or fast food worker, their missions would be failing left and right.  If we accepted the same level of cleanliness and sterilization of surgical instruments and insertable medical devices as we do in our kitchen or bathroom, people would be dying of iatrogenic sepsis left and right.  If voting machines were constructed and programmed according to the same rigors as the free apps on your phone, we could not guarantee anything close to reliable election results.  Your objection, to me, seems fundamentally unsound.

The heart is a mechanical pump. The brain is itself a computer of sorts. I think your comparison doesn't wash because it ignores this important qualitative difference. You argue for different standards, yet would treat the brain the same as any other organ in the body. It isn't the same.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

When you get around to acknowledging the multiple examples I gave instead of cherry-picking one and misrepresenting it, send me a postcard. Yes, the heart pumps blood. If it doesn't, you die. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

And no, I didn't treat them the same. I argued that the same argument could be made. I said nothing about treating them the same. That you pulled whole cloth from your ass.

[Thumpalumpacus]

When you get around to acknowledging the multiple examples I gave instead of cherry-picking one and misrepresenting it, send me a postcard.  Yes, the heart pumps blood.  If it doesn't, you die.  Nothing wrong with that, is there?

The heart is not the seat of self. The brain is. That's the qualitative difference that gives me worry about brain implants, while being happy pacemakers are available.

As for getting back to you, I'm not invested in changing your mind, so it's cool. I'm answering the OP's question. Sorry you don't like my answers.

And no, I didn't treat them the same.  I argued that the same argument could be made.  I said nothing about treating them the same.  That you pulled whole cloth from your ass.

Very well. Comparing brain implants to pacemakers in terms of their analogous status as mechanical aids ignores the fact that our brains are uniquely the seat of our selves, which is why I don't find your point very convincing.

At any rate, it's certainly not worth arguing over, to me.

[Dānu]

Sorry you don't like my answers.

You make the same mistake Republicans make when they are dismissive of complaints about Trump. I neither like nor dislike your answer. I do find your answer defective. If you're fine promoting defective arguments, then keep doing so. If not, I suggest you see if there is a way to correct those defects. It isn't a matter of not liking them for purely subjective reasons. It is a matter of not liking them because they are bad answers. Just as I can dislike Trump for bad policy and bad acts, without ever exercising any personal animus.

And no, I didn't compare brains and hearts in any sense, analogous or not. So, stop pulling shit from your ass to defend an argument you supposedly have no interest in pursuing.