3 ms·

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

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
Meanwhile here's a monkey playing Pong with its brain: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/8/22374749/elon-musk-neuralink-monkey-pong-brain-interface https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/8/22374749/elon-musk-neurali... Now you go tell the paraplegics that this work is pointless...

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

Meanwhile here's a monkey playing Pong with its brain: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/8/22374749/elon-musk-neuralink-monkey-pong-brain-interface https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/8/22374749/elon-musk-neurali... Now you go tell the paraplegics that this work is pointless...