6 ms·

Neuralink is a very interesting effort, but with brain-computer interfaces there is an elephant in the room that seems to be brushed off or overlooked all the t

• Artistry121 6y ago
  They did. Very limited attack surface.
  • ethanwillis 6y ago
    Limited attack surface is not acceptable for a device inside your brain.
    • nickik 6y ago
      And nobody ever said that its the only thing they do.
      • ianmobbs 6y ago
        Okay, but it is Neuralink’s responsibility to say everything they do. If the only thing OP can find is that they guarantee a “limited attack surface”, that’s frankly not acceptable for a device in your brain.
        • jfoster 6y ago
          > it is Neuralink’s responsibility to say everything they do When they bring a product to market, that is.
        • nickik 6y ago
          The presentation was in general about Neuralink. You had 1 question about security and the guy gave an 30s answer saying it is very important, they are doing it from ground up and try to bake in security from the beginning. He mentioned one example, of seperating BLE stack on a hardware level. Seems like a reasonable answer for a Q&A of this format. Neuralink has actually no responsibility to tell you their whole security architecture. They are presenting this for recruiting and showing the public some of their progress.
• o_p 6y ago
  The only reason why software is unsecure is because we decided to tradeoff security for development speed. Using secure languages, formal software verification,etc you could create secure systems. Brain software would definitely have to be put in much higher standard.
  • tines 6y ago
    Making it secure will take more time, and companies will not willingly waste time because it puts them behind competitors. Therefore security is a solution that can only be enforced via government regulation, and of course not all governments are going to regulate it, which will naturally lead to a race to deregulate under pain of being left behind. So we might be able to make it secure hypothetically, but my bets are, we will choose not to. Case in point would be self-driving cars, which are hilariously underregulated.
    • lightgreen 6y ago
      > Case in point would be self-driving cars, which are hilariously underregulated. Why is it bad? Self-driving cars kill less people than human-driver cars per mile. If we heavily regulate self-driving cars, we will slow down self-driving cars development. Cars will probably be safer, but the number of cars will be smaller, thus number of deaths will be higher. No, we don't need self-driving cars regularions at this moment.
      • tines 6y ago
        > Why is it bad? I didn't say it was bad, I was just observing and predicting. > Self-driving cars kill less people than human-driver cars per mile. The types of self driving cars you are referring to are the kind being sold to consumers now, which are more like "assisted driving" than self driving. There are very few of them (i.e. they are not widely tested), they are owned by rich people (selection bias), and they ship with a giant warning not to let the car actually drive itself without supervision. So you're really testing the crash rate of wealthy educated people with driving assistance against the rest of humanity without assistance, it is no wonder the deaths are lower. The type I am referring to are the ones that actually drive themselves, the shipping trucks and whatnot. > If we heavily regulate self-driving cars, we will slow down self-driving cars development. Cars will probably be safer, but the number of cars will be smaller, thus number of deaths will be higher. This simply restates the point I made originally: we will be able to make them safe, but we will choose not to for whatever reason.
• asdff 6y ago
  Who is to say that attacks might come from outside? Nations might mandate a backdoor from the Neuralink developers directly. Malevolent ones will surely want a literal kill switch feature, or copy the technology with their own. Imagine the horrifying power of a nation state that can kill any citizen at any time in any place with a keystroke. With that everpresent threat, you might not even need to be served propaganda to fall in line with the whims of the government.
  • LukeB42 6y ago
    <Aramaki> What do you mean I bricked my device?