4 ms·

> I doubt we will have accurate, mind-reading consumer devices in the near future I'm not sure Neuralink would disagree. Their first applications are medical,

> I doubt we will have accurate, mind-reading consumer devices in the near future I'm not sure Neuralink would disagree. Their first applications are medical, not consumer mind-reading. They're open about their bigger vision being farther away. > Neuroscience is far from understanding how the mind works — much less having the ability to decode it. We don't necessarily have to understand everything about the brain to communicate with it. And we'll learn a lot in the process. > a neurotech device would have to add significant value for a consumer to get one implanted in her skull. Again, I don't think Neuralink would disagree. I guess the disagreement is in whether an implant could provide that significant value. And nobody really knows yet, of course. A lot depends on how well the brain can adapt to a new form of I/O. > Consumer brain-recording devices have been on the market for roughly 15 years Yeah but the technology is totally different and quite lame honestly. Existing devices have fundamental limitations that are not shared by an actual brain implant. Not a strong argument IMO. > Helmets and other headgear face an uphill battle to adoption The external hardware for an implant can get pretty small. Much less obtrusive than the given example of Google Glass. > It may be more taxing to control a device with a BCI than without it Pure speculation at this point. Honestly it is wise to be skeptical. But mostly I am skeptical of the timeline, not the eventual usefulness of the product. Neuralink is likely too early, but one day useful consumer brain implants will be possible.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dumbfoundded 6y ago
It's so far out in the future that numerous other advances may make the entirety of the approach useless. For example, maybe computers get so smart our need to interact with them diminishes and we interact with them rather passively. Maybe the opposite happens and we need even tighter coupling leading to a genetic engineering solution or a nanobot pill solution that crosses the blood brain barrier. The problem is everything is pure speculation at this point. I do hope they accomplish some of their goals but any business potential seems a total guess.
- andbberger 6y ago
  > Maybe the opposite happens and we need even tighter coupling leading to a genetic engineering solution You first. As it happens, neuroscientists have become quite proficient in reading out the activity of large numbers of neurons in recent times. We do whole-brain activity imaging (of fruit flies) routinely in the lab that I work in (albeit not at single-cell resolution). The problem is that these techniques are incredibly invasive. They involve genetically encoded fluorescent protein sensors, surgery and lasers so bright that imaging time is quite limited (because the organism gets cooked). That approach is never going to work in humans. The genetic engineering alone is enough of a problem, let alone the optical bench (not exactly portable) and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment you need. And the whole reason that approach became so popular in the first place is because of how limiting electrophysiology is. You can get at best a couple of thousands of neurons with ephys. Certainly not the routine whole-brain imaging that is happening right now in neuro labs around the world. So there's pretty good reason to be skeptical of neuralink. I don't think you'll ever meet a working neuroscientist who thinks this has any chance of working. What GP is expressing is entirely baseless. Of course neuralink would disagree, they have a profit motive and snake-oil to sell. Ask someone who actually works in the field and you're going to hear a different story. If what neuralink was doing was actually worth pursuing, HHMI Janelia would be investing in it. They were doing ephys on dragonflies in flight way back on 2014 for gods sake [0]. They've got the chops, and that they're not doing it speaks volumes. [0] https://www.janelia.org/news/anthony-leonardo-tracking-dragonflies-flight https://www.janelia.org/news/anthony-leonardo-tracking-drago...
  - boardwaalk 6y ago
    The goals are so ambitious that I think we have to be specific about we're talking about and specific about what won't work. (Because you haven't actually said anything about why it won't work.) If their first goal is to restore some functionality to severely paralyzed people with less big/bulky and doesn't leave a hole (infection point) in your skull, what won't work about that? Is it the body rejecting the implant? Is it the wires breaking down or migrating out of where they're placed? What is it?
- dadrock 6y ago
deviation 6y ago
> But mostly I am skeptical of the timeline People should always be skeptical of timelines when it comes to Musk's ventures. He is famous for short deadlines, high expectations, and a competitive environment. There's a TED talk somewhere out there with SpaceX's CEO where this comes up a bunch, and she plays on it very well.
- dint 6y ago
  The referenced talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA
Balgair 6y ago
> We don't necessarily have to understand everything about the brain to communicate with it. And we'll learn a lot in the process. Very true! However, we're still learning a lot about the brain. For instance, astrocytes/glia are still quite understudied despite being ~1/2 of the cells in your brain (maybe). Mostly, this is because they are not very electrically reactive. But they are known to be a pathway for NMDAr recycling as well as surrounding the synapse in certain parts of the brain. This issue of astrocytes is one of thousands that we're still trying to get a grip on. Essentially, we have okay-ish knowledge of large-scale phenomena (~1cm3) and small-scale (synapse, nucleus) behavior, but the middle ground (10's of neurons) is quite hard. Unfortunately, that seems to be were all the magic happens. > A lot depends on how well the brain can adapt to a new form of I/O. Typically, it does this via scarring. Making sure the leads are engineered to deal with scarring is the first hurdle. Then you'd need to stimulate only a select few neurons, a feat that is quite difficult (dynamic positioning, heartbeat, discharges, feedback, etc). Not necessarily insurmountable problems, but we're not really sure how to do that compactly with wires. One way is just use light and optogenetics and CLARITY, but then you have to genetically modify a brain and wash it out in situ, which is downright crazy hard.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dumbfoundded 6y ago

It's so far out in the future that numerous other advances may make the entirety of the approach useless. For example, maybe computers get so smart our need to interact with them diminishes and we interact with them rather passively. Maybe the opposite happens and we need even tighter coupling leading to a genetic engineering solution or a nanobot pill solution that crosses the blood brain barrier. The problem is everything is pure speculation at this point. I do hope they accomplish some of their goals but any business potential seems a total guess.

andbberger 6y ago
> Maybe the opposite happens and we need even tighter coupling leading to a genetic engineering solution You first. As it happens, neuroscientists have become quite proficient in reading out the activity of large numbers of neurons in recent times. We do whole-brain activity imaging (of fruit flies) routinely in the lab that I work in (albeit not at single-cell resolution). The problem is that these techniques are incredibly invasive. They involve genetically encoded fluorescent protein sensors, surgery and lasers so bright that imaging time is quite limited (because the organism gets cooked). That approach is never going to work in humans. The genetic engineering alone is enough of a problem, let alone the optical bench (not exactly portable) and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment you need. And the whole reason that approach became so popular in the first place is because of how limiting electrophysiology is. You can get at best a couple of thousands of neurons with ephys. Certainly not the routine whole-brain imaging that is happening right now in neuro labs around the world. So there's pretty good reason to be skeptical of neuralink. I don't think you'll ever meet a working neuroscientist who thinks this has any chance of working. What GP is expressing is entirely baseless. Of course neuralink would disagree, they have a profit motive and snake-oil to sell. Ask someone who actually works in the field and you're going to hear a different story. If what neuralink was doing was actually worth pursuing, HHMI Janelia would be investing in it. They were doing ephys on dragonflies in flight way back on 2014 for gods sake [0]. They've got the chops, and that they're not doing it speaks volumes. [0] https://www.janelia.org/news/anthony-leonardo-tracking-dragonflies-flight https://www.janelia.org/news/anthony-leonardo-tracking-drago...
- boardwaalk 6y ago
  The goals are so ambitious that I think we have to be specific about we're talking about and specific about what won't work. (Because you haven't actually said anything about why it won't work.) If their first goal is to restore some functionality to severely paralyzed people with less big/bulky and doesn't leave a hole (infection point) in your skull, what won't work about that? Is it the body rejecting the implant? Is it the wires breaking down or migrating out of where they're placed? What is it?
dadrock 6y ago

deviation 6y ago

> But mostly I am skeptical of the timeline People should always be skeptical of timelines when it comes to Musk's ventures. He is famous for short deadlines, high expectations, and a competitive environment. There's a TED talk somewhere out there with SpaceX's CEO where this comes up a bunch, and she plays on it very well.

dint 6y ago
The referenced talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA

Balgair 6y ago

> We don't necessarily have to understand everything about the brain to communicate with it. And we'll learn a lot in the process. Very true! However, we're still learning a lot about the brain. For instance, astrocytes/glia are still quite understudied despite being ~1/2 of the cells in your brain (maybe). Mostly, this is because they are not very electrically reactive. But they are known to be a pathway for NMDAr recycling as well as surrounding the synapse in certain parts of the brain. This issue of astrocytes is one of thousands that we're still trying to get a grip on. Essentially, we have okay-ish knowledge of large-scale phenomena (~1cm3) and small-scale (synapse, nucleus) behavior, but the middle ground (10's of neurons) is quite hard. Unfortunately, that seems to be were all the magic happens. > A lot depends on how well the brain can adapt to a new form of I/O. Typically, it does this via scarring. Making sure the leads are engineered to deal with scarring is the first hurdle. Then you'd need to stimulate only a select few neurons, a feat that is quite difficult (dynamic positioning, heartbeat, discharges, feedback, etc). Not necessarily insurmountable problems, but we're not really sure how to do that compactly with wires. One way is just use light and optogenetics and CLARITY, but then you have to genetically modify a brain and wash it out in situ, which is downright crazy hard.