5 ms·

I think the difference is tackling a pre-existing market. Both cars and space had large existing markets to which Elon could speed up the rate of progress. The

I think the difference is tackling a pre-existing market. Both cars and space had large existing markets to which Elon could speed up the rate of progress. There isn't really a market for BCI except for cases of disability. In this case, he has to create the customer demand for a technology that doesn't exist. That's a really tough sell when even if it did work (which is very much in doubt), would require a literal brain surgery. This isn't like scaling up a factory or using modern compute to get a rocket to land itself. It's fundamental research with uncertainties on perhaps every angle.

aeternum 6y ago
I would seriously consider getting it depending on the bandwidth. Direct access to web search and an indexed storage system would be having a super power. Plenty of people get Lasik just to avoid the annoyance of contacts/glasses and eyes are technically part of the brain. Why wouldn't there be a market for BCI when the potential benefit is much greater?
- platz 6y ago
  Do you really randomly poking some electrodes into your brain tissue is going to give you enough fidelity to query google. That's all it is, you know. Some wires, randomly placed in tissue. The cells around those wires don't know the TCP/IP protocol or anything
  - flixic 6y ago
    And chips are just some metal and sand, yet we figured out a way to turn them into something very useful. After all, our brains themselves are just "some wires".
    - platz 6y ago
      And theres a big difference between between a completely controlled environment like a chip and an uncontrolled environment relative to engineering like a brain. I think your missing the point about what I'm highlighting needs to happen after the wires are inserted into some otherwise unsuspecting tissue that isn't specially adapted for this use case in any particular way.
      - aeternum 6y ago
        Yes, the brain is very adaptable though. Consider for example that humans can learn to use neurons in our fingertip to read, via braille. It would be pretty easy even with today's tech to stimulate neurons similarly to braille touch which we know works, provides 125-200 words per minute. With some research there should be ways to increase that bandwidth significantly.
        platz 6y ago
        > It would be pretty easy even with today's tech to stimulate neurons similarly to braille touch which we know works Citation needed
- dumbfoundded 6y ago
  The best answer I can give you is that we don't know it's too early to speculate. Maybe HCI get so good that the actual BCI part adds little value. Like a contact lens and an ear piece may accomplish just as much. Maybe machines in the future just won't need that much specification. Like we'll give high level goals to robots/computer and interaction will be much more passive. You'll just tell a program to do your taxes or tell a robot to clean the house and it'll get done. It's possible that we can accomplish most of the benefits of BCI without the brain surgery part. By the time this technology is ready, you may be able to take nano-bot pills once a month and to uninstall, you just stop taking them. Or maybe we'll genetically engineer babies to be born with them. It's so early that all we can do right now is speculate and there's a lot of reason to believe this one particular company won't succeed.
- etripe 6y ago
  Most people didn't get Lasik when there still was a risk of permanent damage like blindness or halos. A lot more did when the technology became proven. As someone who underwent the procedure, it also felt like liberating surgery. Applying similar patterns to Neuralink, the likelihood that a lot of people will jump at the opportunity initially is small. After that, it all depends on how exactly it improves lives (maybe even becomes necessary in some fields?) and how long they can absorb losses until the process is battle-tested enough. As opposed to Lasik, Neuralink presents much greater risks through surgery and being an implant in the first place. My guess is the value proposition would need to be overwhelming for a lot of people to consider it and fairly strong for enough people to consider it to guarantee profitability.
  - dumbfoundded 6y ago
    Actually it peaked in 2000, one year after the FDA approved it in 1999 when 1.4M Americans got it. Now around 700K people get it yearly (1). ~10M people total have gotten Lasik. Around ~165M Americans currently have glasses. About 75% of adults need corrective vision of some sort. I wouldn't call this widespread adoption. Maybe it's cost, maybe it's the risk of the surgery. (1) https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20180727/lasik-know-the-rewards-and-the-risks https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20180727/lasik-know-th...

aeternum 6y ago

I would seriously consider getting it depending on the bandwidth. Direct access to web search and an indexed storage system would be having a super power. Plenty of people get Lasik just to avoid the annoyance of contacts/glasses and eyes are technically part of the brain. Why wouldn't there be a market for BCI when the potential benefit is much greater?

platz 6y ago
Do you really randomly poking some electrodes into your brain tissue is going to give you enough fidelity to query google. That's all it is, you know. Some wires, randomly placed in tissue. The cells around those wires don't know the TCP/IP protocol or anything
- flixic 6y ago
  And chips are just some metal and sand, yet we figured out a way to turn them into something very useful. After all, our brains themselves are just "some wires".
  - platz 6y ago
    And theres a big difference between between a completely controlled environment like a chip and an uncontrolled environment relative to engineering like a brain. I think your missing the point about what I'm highlighting needs to happen after the wires are inserted into some otherwise unsuspecting tissue that isn't specially adapted for this use case in any particular way.
    - aeternum 6y ago
      Yes, the brain is very adaptable though. Consider for example that humans can learn to use neurons in our fingertip to read, via braille. It would be pretty easy even with today's tech to stimulate neurons similarly to braille touch which we know works, provides 125-200 words per minute. With some research there should be ways to increase that bandwidth significantly.
      - platz 6y ago
        > It would be pretty easy even with today's tech to stimulate neurons similarly to braille touch which we know works Citation needed
dumbfoundded 6y ago
The best answer I can give you is that we don't know it's too early to speculate. Maybe HCI get so good that the actual BCI part adds little value. Like a contact lens and an ear piece may accomplish just as much. Maybe machines in the future just won't need that much specification. Like we'll give high level goals to robots/computer and interaction will be much more passive. You'll just tell a program to do your taxes or tell a robot to clean the house and it'll get done. It's possible that we can accomplish most of the benefits of BCI without the brain surgery part. By the time this technology is ready, you may be able to take nano-bot pills once a month and to uninstall, you just stop taking them. Or maybe we'll genetically engineer babies to be born with them. It's so early that all we can do right now is speculate and there's a lot of reason to believe this one particular company won't succeed.
etripe 6y ago
Most people didn't get Lasik when there still was a risk of permanent damage like blindness or halos. A lot more did when the technology became proven. As someone who underwent the procedure, it also felt like liberating surgery. Applying similar patterns to Neuralink, the likelihood that a lot of people will jump at the opportunity initially is small. After that, it all depends on how exactly it improves lives (maybe even becomes necessary in some fields?) and how long they can absorb losses until the process is battle-tested enough. As opposed to Lasik, Neuralink presents much greater risks through surgery and being an implant in the first place. My guess is the value proposition would need to be overwhelming for a lot of people to consider it and fairly strong for enough people to consider it to guarantee profitability.
- dumbfoundded 6y ago
  Actually it peaked in 2000, one year after the FDA approved it in 1999 when 1.4M Americans got it. Now around 700K people get it yearly (1). ~10M people total have gotten Lasik. Around ~165M Americans currently have glasses. About 75% of adults need corrective vision of some sort. I wouldn't call this widespread adoption. Maybe it's cost, maybe it's the risk of the surgery. (1) https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20180727/lasik-know-the-rewards-and-the-risks https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20180727/lasik-know-th...