4 ms·

No, actually high density electrode implants are right around the corner. Watch the neuralink press event.

by 2008guy 7y ago

bognition 7y ago
The limiting factor here isn't implant technology. The limiting factor is the rate we can implant electrodes and do new science. Don't get me wrong, I love Elon as much as the next fanboy but there are serious ethical implications at play here that you can't just engineer your way around.
empath75 7y ago
> One engineering challenge is that the brain's chemical environment can cause many plastics to gradually deteriorate. Another challenge to chronic electrode implants is the inflammatory reaction to brain implants. Transmission of chemical messengers via neurons is impeded by a barrier-forming glial scar that occurs within weeks after insertion followed by progressive neurodegeneration, attenuating signal sensitivity. Furthermore, the thin electrodes which Neuralink uses, are more likely to break than thicker electrodes, and currently cannot be removed when broken or when rendered useless after glial scar forming. Yeah, you're not putting that in my brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralink
- 2008guy 7y ago
  The inflammation and damage is seen in traditional arrays that are large and rigid. A thread with low enough moment of inertia will likely not cause as much damage. And the damage is only important if you put the electrodes in an important place... we currently screw two giant lag screws into people’s heads and call it “deep brain stimulation” so I feel optimistic about the long game. But you’d still be right to be wary. And if I had it my way, this technology would never be allowed to exist at all...
  - Balgair 7y ago
    > A thread with low enough moment of inertia will likely not cause as much damage. Shear forces cause glial scarring?
    - 2008guy 7y ago
      Yes
  - stainforth 7y ago
    Can you continue about your opposition to it existing?
    - salawat 7y ago
      It's a social crisis waiting to happen, especially if you can end up decoding more than just what someone uses their speech centers to articulate. This is invasive to the extreme, and seems to open the door for violations of people's intimate thoughts down the road. You may not think about it much now, but if you pay any attention to things like intrusive thoughts, or even have to deal with carefully maintaining a public face in the workplace, it should not be difficult to realize why these technologies are legitimately dangerous even as read only systems. The real nightmare begins when you finally get fed up with Read-Only and figure out how to write in order to potentially mutate mental state. I'm normally pretty forward-thinking in terms of embracing the March of technological progress. However, the last decade or so has shown we as a society have had our grasp exceed our socio/ethical/moral framework for using it responsibly; and the potential abuse a full read/write neural interface would enable is one of the few things that has managed to attain a "full-stop" in my personal socio-ethical-moral framework. Not to sound like that an adult, but we're just not ready. Before anyone points out that the same moral outrage probably occurred with the printing press; there is a big damn difference between changing someone's mind through pamphlets, and having a direct link to the limbic system to tickle on a whim. We do a very bad job of correctly estimating the long-term effects of technological advancement; just look at how destructive targeted advertising has been. I haven't reached my conclusion on an existing preconception/predisposition either. I used to be massively for this particular advancement. Only through a long time spent reflecting on it has my viewpoint done a 180. I'm aware of all of the positive applications for the handicap, brain-locked, and paralyzed; but I'm still reluctant to consider embracing it for their sake when I've seen how prone to taking a crowbar to a minor exception/precedent our legal system is. Maybe I've just been in the industry long enough not to trust tech people to keep society's overall well-being and stability at heart. Maybe I'm becoming a luddic coward as I get older. I don't know, and I ask myself if I'm not being unreasonable every day. The answer hasn't changed though in a long while, even though I do keep trying to seek out opportunities to challenge it. I hope that helps, and doesn't make me sound like too much of a nut.
Ajedi32 7y ago
What Neuralink has done so far is pretty impressive, but I think "decades" is still a pretty reasonable estimate for when that technology will be available for use cases that aren't medically necessary.

No, actually high density electrode implants are right around the corner. Watch the neuralink press event.

The limiting factor here isn't implant technology. The limiting factor is the rate we can implant electrodes and do new science. Don't get me wrong, I love Elon as much as the next fanboy but there are serious ethical implications at play here that you can't just engineer your way around.

empath75 7y ago

> One engineering challenge is that the brain's chemical environment can cause many plastics to gradually deteriorate. Another challenge to chronic electrode implants is the inflammatory reaction to brain implants. Transmission of chemical messengers via neurons is impeded by a barrier-forming glial scar that occurs within weeks after insertion followed by progressive neurodegeneration, attenuating signal sensitivity. Furthermore, the thin electrodes which Neuralink uses, are more likely to break than thicker electrodes, and currently cannot be removed when broken or when rendered useless after glial scar forming. Yeah, you're not putting that in my brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralink

2008guy 7y ago
The inflammation and damage is seen in traditional arrays that are large and rigid. A thread with low enough moment of inertia will likely not cause as much damage. And the damage is only important if you put the electrodes in an important place... we currently screw two giant lag screws into people’s heads and call it “deep brain stimulation” so I feel optimistic about the long game. But you’d still be right to be wary. And if I had it my way, this technology would never be allowed to exist at all...
- Balgair 7y ago
  > A thread with low enough moment of inertia will likely not cause as much damage. Shear forces cause glial scarring?
  - 2008guy 7y ago
    Yes
- stainforth 7y ago
  Can you continue about your opposition to it existing?
  - salawat 7y ago
    It's a social crisis waiting to happen, especially if you can end up decoding more than just what someone uses their speech centers to articulate. This is invasive to the extreme, and seems to open the door for violations of people's intimate thoughts down the road. You may not think about it much now, but if you pay any attention to things like intrusive thoughts, or even have to deal with carefully maintaining a public face in the workplace, it should not be difficult to realize why these technologies are legitimately dangerous even as read only systems. The real nightmare begins when you finally get fed up with Read-Only and figure out how to write in order to potentially mutate mental state. I'm normally pretty forward-thinking in terms of embracing the March of technological progress. However, the last decade or so has shown we as a society have had our grasp exceed our socio/ethical/moral framework for using it responsibly; and the potential abuse a full read/write neural interface would enable is one of the few things that has managed to attain a "full-stop" in my personal socio-ethical-moral framework. Not to sound like that an adult, but we're just not ready. Before anyone points out that the same moral outrage probably occurred with the printing press; there is a big damn difference between changing someone's mind through pamphlets, and having a direct link to the limbic system to tickle on a whim. We do a very bad job of correctly estimating the long-term effects of technological advancement; just look at how destructive targeted advertising has been. I haven't reached my conclusion on an existing preconception/predisposition either. I used to be massively for this particular advancement. Only through a long time spent reflecting on it has my viewpoint done a 180. I'm aware of all of the positive applications for the handicap, brain-locked, and paralyzed; but I'm still reluctant to consider embracing it for their sake when I've seen how prone to taking a crowbar to a minor exception/precedent our legal system is. Maybe I've just been in the industry long enough not to trust tech people to keep society's overall well-being and stability at heart. Maybe I'm becoming a luddic coward as I get older. I don't know, and I ask myself if I'm not being unreasonable every day. The answer hasn't changed though in a long while, even though I do keep trying to seek out opportunities to challenge it. I hope that helps, and doesn't make me sound like too much of a nut.

Ajedi32 7y ago

What Neuralink has done so far is pretty impressive, but I think "decades" is still a pretty reasonable estimate for when that technology will be available for use cases that aren't medically necessary.