4 ms·

I don’t see the point of this comment. Of course they are relatively far away. But they are also closer than anybody else.

• kevinskii 6y ago
  No, not by a long shot. See, for example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190619142542.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190619142542.h...
  • oxymoran 6y ago
    Do they have a robot surgeon that installs it though?
    • kevinskii 6y ago
      It's non-invasive. No need. (Maybe you were joking.)
  • zaroth 6y ago
    It’s an interesting article, but I’m not sure why you would imply this orthogonal approach is further along than Neuralink. The novel research being done in the paper you linked isn’t even around the sensor suite, it’s around training AI to extract more precise signal from a noisy sensor — in this case an EEG. The premise of the article is that EEG is being used because direct neural monitoring is too invasive and difficult. Neuralink is essentially attempting to disprove the premise of that paper. I’m going to guess the signal processing Neuralink will be doing is much more sophisticated than whatever that paper was doing on top of an EEG feed, just because the data rate from Neuralink is so much higher.