4 ms·

I'm not sure you understand what "substantiated" means. > There are many ways for a company to compensate people, other than hiring them as an employee (consul

by xedeon 4y ago

I'm not sure you understand what "substantiated" means. > There are many ways for a company to compensate people, other than hiring them as an employee (consulting fees, board seat, stock, etc.) Again, that's a claim. The burden of proof is on you. Do you have any? > I sincerely doubt Ms. Vance is doing this for free. It's Mr. Vance.

iancmceachern 4y ago
Hey Mr. Vance, it looks like many folks disagree with you and your wife's stance on Neuralink, including some of their own employees. See this article and associated comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33872950#33874405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33872950#33874405
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  And here is more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33878219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33878219 It appears that they have killed 1500 animals so far, that is a staggering number. For context most of the projects I've worked on use a total of a dozen or so animals over the course of the entire program, and those devices are on the market.
- xedeon 4y ago
  My question for you is, has any of it been “substantiated”? Because so far I haven’t seen any ruling, fine, or confirmation from any governing body.
SlickNixon 4y ago
Your initial (implicit) claim was that Ashlee Vance is an unbiased observer, which has yet to be substantiated. How can we know that Vance is self-censoring? We can't. I'm sure they believe everything they're saying, but if they believed something different they would not be touring the Neuralink labs.
- xedeon 4y ago
  You might want to read the thread again. I believe the word you’re looking for is “bias”. Even if we take Vance out of the picture. My point on the claims being unsubstantiated (so far) still stand. Can you find any source that a governing body has fined Neuralink for factually being complicit based on the claims?
  - SlickNixon 4y ago
    >even if we take Vance out of the picture Pump the brakes. With Vance out of the picture your initial comment is a link to someone's LinkedIn profile. Do you want answers to these questions or are you throwing up flak?
    - xedeon 4y ago
      Perhaps you should quickly search "Autumn Sorrells" to see her experience/credentials. Not sure what you're even getting at here.
      - SlickNixon 4y ago
        Why would I need to search for her credentials when you gave me a url to her LinkedIn profile? Are you familiar with the complaint lodged against Neuralink by PCRM? Did you read the Guardian and Business Wire articles that iancmceachern posted? Do you consider the Guardian and Business Wire to be reputable news organizations, and their reporting on the issue and the statements released by PCRM a form of substantiation? Is a link to Autumn Sorrells LinkedIn, a link to Ashlee Vance's wikipedia page, and a couple of tweets by the same intended as a response to any of the above?
        xedeon 4y ago
        > Do you consider the Guardian and Business Wire to be reputable news organizations No not really. Also, there are no “forms of substantiation”or “grey areas”. Either the allegations will be confirmed true (substantiated) or not (un substantiated) after the adjudication process… So the logical thing to do is wait and see for any ruling to come out. I despise hopping on any speculative bandwagon.

by xedeon 4y ago

iancmceachern 4y ago

Hey Mr. Vance, it looks like many folks disagree with you and your wife's stance on Neuralink, including some of their own employees. See this article and associated comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33872950#33874405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33872950#33874405

iancmceachern 4y ago
And here is more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33878219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33878219 It appears that they have killed 1500 animals so far, that is a staggering number. For context most of the projects I've worked on use a total of a dozen or so animals over the course of the entire program, and those devices are on the market.
xedeon 4y ago
My question for you is, has any of it been “substantiated”? Because so far I haven’t seen any ruling, fine, or confirmation from any governing body.

SlickNixon 4y ago

Your initial (implicit) claim was that Ashlee Vance is an unbiased observer, which has yet to be substantiated. How can we know that Vance is self-censoring? We can't. I'm sure they believe everything they're saying, but if they believed something different they would not be touring the Neuralink labs.

xedeon 4y ago
You might want to read the thread again. I believe the word you’re looking for is “bias”. Even if we take Vance out of the picture. My point on the claims being unsubstantiated (so far) still stand. Can you find any source that a governing body has fined Neuralink for factually being complicit based on the claims?
- SlickNixon 4y ago
  >even if we take Vance out of the picture Pump the brakes. With Vance out of the picture your initial comment is a link to someone's LinkedIn profile. Do you want answers to these questions or are you throwing up flak?
  - xedeon 4y ago
    Perhaps you should quickly search "Autumn Sorrells" to see her experience/credentials. Not sure what you're even getting at here.
    - SlickNixon 4y ago
      Why would I need to search for her credentials when you gave me a url to her LinkedIn profile? Are you familiar with the complaint lodged against Neuralink by PCRM? Did you read the Guardian and Business Wire articles that iancmceachern posted? Do you consider the Guardian and Business Wire to be reputable news organizations, and their reporting on the issue and the statements released by PCRM a form of substantiation? Is a link to Autumn Sorrells LinkedIn, a link to Ashlee Vance's wikipedia page, and a couple of tweets by the same intended as a response to any of the above?
      - xedeon 4y ago
        > Do you consider the Guardian and Business Wire to be reputable news organizations No not really. Also, there are no “forms of substantiation”or “grey areas”. Either the allegations will be confirmed true (substantiated) or not (un substantiated) after the adjudication process… So the logical thing to do is wait and see for any ruling to come out. I despise hopping on any speculative bandwagon.