Even assuming what they're reporting is true (which having read IIAOPSW's comment above now seems rather unlikely) I don't see the situation as terrible. "15 of

Even assuming what they're reporting is true (which having read IIAOPSW's comment above now seems rather unlikely) I don't see the situation as terrible. "15 of 23 monkeys died" is in itself meaningless. We don't know how long they intended to keep them alive anyways - a reasonable protocol in this kind of studies is "have procedure, observe for X weeks, then have an autopsy to take a closer look at what actually happened". TBH, that's pretty much what I expect they do - I wouldn't want that in my head without them actually looking at brains under a microscope to check for unexpected side effects. They're also using monkeys - which yes, look cute, but are not primates. If I'd hear chimps, for example, I'd expect them to be implanted long term, and be much more careful and sparing with autopsies. Also most of the issues in the article don't directly touch neuralink technology but generic brain surgery stuff like infection. So worst case scenario they should improve their procedures, but there it doesn't say anything there's inherently bad about the tech. And on a second reading of the article I realize I can't really get much cold info out of it. It reads a lot like somebody got gossip over a few beers and posted on social media and a reporter took it from there.