5 ms·

I have a better idea: instead to run tests concurrently(kinda what Musk is doing) let's run them sequentially so that less animals are used(even if it takes way

I have a better idea: instead to run tests concurrently(kinda what Musk is doing) let's run them sequentially so that less animals are used(even if it takes way more time). We can use the saved animals for some tasty burgers. Nevermind that some people need treatments now. We can give them the saved burgers.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
I find it interesting how quickly people resort to a "the ends justify the means" attitude about this stuff when, as pointed out in the article, there are others in the same space doing the same thing who HAVE managed to perform the due diligence required to get the proper approval. Is the assumption their efforts won't lead to anything because they've managed not to screw up the implant sizes or glue?
- naasking 4y ago
  I think the argument is that they're taking too long. Actual humans continue to suffer with problems that could be addressed by this technology while some people are "hand-wringing" about animal life in a society that raises and kills animals inhumanely because they're tasty.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    We can only assume that this is taking too long if we assume that Neuralink is somehow able to skip the fundamentals and be successful. As I pointed out above Synchron is further ahead, they are making more progress because they were able to meet the required standard, and I think we can all agree standards are important for human trials (or is a few extra human deaths ok if it gets to market sooner?), so I'd suggest it's Neuralink's own fault they can't meet the advancement criteria and not just concerns about animal welfare that are getting in the way.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Synchron was also started 4 years earlier, so it's not necessarily because they are doing a better job. Neuralink is playing catch up in a sense.
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        > Neuralink is playing catch up in a sense. Yes, in areas like testing discipline. I don't accept the argument that you can skip past the fundamentals and it'll all just work out because you may be able to help some people quicker. That's everyone's goal in that space - to get implants onto the market as fast as possible.
        naasking 4y ago
        I know you don't find it plausible, just saying that that doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect.
        SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
        It is wholly incorrect that you can perform sloppy experiments that lead to excess costs of your research and expect this to be at all respectable or acceptable among your peers just because your research is particularly exciting or potentially useful. If anything, being sloppy is a point against you when you’re working in particularly impactful stuff, because it shows your skills as a scientist aren’t up to the standards of the field you’re researching.
      - concordDance 4y ago
        Aren't Synchron doing a much easier task?
  - danShumway 4y ago
    I'd have more sympathy for this argument if Neuralink was genuinely the fastest or more efficient way to solve these problems, but it's a far shot attempting to build a technology that is wildly ambitious where there's no guarantee that it will provide the revolution people claim (or that it will even be commercially and economically available at all to the vast majority of people who need it). It's not just that the research could be done with less suffering/death, it's also that this is also not really the highest-priority research if we want to improve the lives of differently-abled and disabled people. But we're being asked to excuse bad research practices that result in unnecessary death because somehow Neuralink specifically is an emergency that needs to have market domination as soon as possible to save lives. I have no objection to Neuralink responsibly conducting research in this direction, but it's far from the most effective or optimistic way that we could be spending that time and money, so I don't see why they specifically should get a pass to violate research ethics. They're already devoting resources in a way that is sub-optimal if you just want to improve the lives of disabled people as quickly as possible. And that's fine, but at least they can devote those resources responsibly without causing additional suffering.
- ckemere 4y ago
  Synchron is not nearly in the "same space". Comparing their active stents to Neuralink's implants is like comparing a current Timex G-Shock to the new Apple dive watch. (Which is to say both are cool, but one requires evolutionary tech progress and the other requires significant R&D.)
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    Does it matter that Apple's watch is going to eventually be better if only the Timex is able to keep time right now?
- noptd 4y ago
  Are you claiming that the ends can never justify the means? If not, then I don't see how their arguments would be inherently devoid of merit.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    You have to weigh the ends against the means. "Repeating the experiments because of sloppiness" is pretty much the bottom of the barrel when it comes to ends, in my opinion.
capableweb 4y ago
Killing animals needlessly aside, if you have to repeat experiments because you're sloppy, you're not moving at the correct speed as you'll have to double-run every trial you're doing. Regardless how you feel about killing animals for humans, don't you want companies that can help people to actually move forward faster rather than slower?
- treis 4y ago
  They're not repeating all experiments.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    I don't think anyone has claimed that either. What the claim is, is that Neuralink might have abnormally high number of repeated experiments as they continue to commit mistakes which makes them either have weak value or having to repeat the same trials. > the number of animal deaths is higher than it needs to be for reasons related to Musk’s demands to speed research. Through company discussions and documents spanning several years, along with employee interviews, Reuters identified four experiments involving 86 pigs and two monkeys that were marred in recent years by human errors. The mistakes weakened the experiments’ research value and required the tests to be repeated,
    - treis 4y ago
      >I don't think anyone has claimed that either You said they'd "have to double-run every trial you're doing". Which isn't correct. They have to double run the experiments they screwed up on. That may or may not be faster than taking the time to improve experiment quality.
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  That's isolated demand for rigor. You're basically saying that "yes, they're doing great work, and the average slaughterhouse is killing the same number of animals in a day or two, but they could be 10% more efficient and that makes them evil".
rideontime 4y ago
Do you think we're making monkey burgers?

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

I find it interesting how quickly people resort to a "the ends justify the means" attitude about this stuff when, as pointed out in the article, there are others in the same space doing the same thing who HAVE managed to perform the due diligence required to get the proper approval. Is the assumption their efforts won't lead to anything because they've managed not to screw up the implant sizes or glue?

naasking 4y ago
I think the argument is that they're taking too long. Actual humans continue to suffer with problems that could be addressed by this technology while some people are "hand-wringing" about animal life in a society that raises and kills animals inhumanely because they're tasty.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  We can only assume that this is taking too long if we assume that Neuralink is somehow able to skip the fundamentals and be successful. As I pointed out above Synchron is further ahead, they are making more progress because they were able to meet the required standard, and I think we can all agree standards are important for human trials (or is a few extra human deaths ok if it gets to market sooner?), so I'd suggest it's Neuralink's own fault they can't meet the advancement criteria and not just concerns about animal welfare that are getting in the way.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Synchron was also started 4 years earlier, so it's not necessarily because they are doing a better job. Neuralink is playing catch up in a sense.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      > Neuralink is playing catch up in a sense. Yes, in areas like testing discipline. I don't accept the argument that you can skip past the fundamentals and it'll all just work out because you may be able to help some people quicker. That's everyone's goal in that space - to get implants onto the market as fast as possible.
      - naasking 4y ago
        I know you don't find it plausible, just saying that that doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect.
        SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
        It is wholly incorrect that you can perform sloppy experiments that lead to excess costs of your research and expect this to be at all respectable or acceptable among your peers just because your research is particularly exciting or potentially useful. If anything, being sloppy is a point against you when you’re working in particularly impactful stuff, because it shows your skills as a scientist aren’t up to the standards of the field you’re researching.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      Aren't Synchron doing a much easier task?
- danShumway 4y ago
  I'd have more sympathy for this argument if Neuralink was genuinely the fastest or more efficient way to solve these problems, but it's a far shot attempting to build a technology that is wildly ambitious where there's no guarantee that it will provide the revolution people claim (or that it will even be commercially and economically available at all to the vast majority of people who need it). It's not just that the research could be done with less suffering/death, it's also that this is also not really the highest-priority research if we want to improve the lives of differently-abled and disabled people. But we're being asked to excuse bad research practices that result in unnecessary death because somehow Neuralink specifically is an emergency that needs to have market domination as soon as possible to save lives. I have no objection to Neuralink responsibly conducting research in this direction, but it's far from the most effective or optimistic way that we could be spending that time and money, so I don't see why they specifically should get a pass to violate research ethics. They're already devoting resources in a way that is sub-optimal if you just want to improve the lives of disabled people as quickly as possible. And that's fine, but at least they can devote those resources responsibly without causing additional suffering.
ckemere 4y ago
Synchron is not nearly in the "same space". Comparing their active stents to Neuralink's implants is like comparing a current Timex G-Shock to the new Apple dive watch. (Which is to say both are cool, but one requires evolutionary tech progress and the other requires significant R&D.)
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Does it matter that Apple's watch is going to eventually be better if only the Timex is able to keep time right now?
noptd 4y ago
Are you claiming that the ends can never justify the means? If not, then I don't see how their arguments would be inherently devoid of merit.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  You have to weigh the ends against the means. "Repeating the experiments because of sloppiness" is pretty much the bottom of the barrel when it comes to ends, in my opinion.

capableweb 4y ago

Killing animals needlessly aside, if you have to repeat experiments because you're sloppy, you're not moving at the correct speed as you'll have to double-run every trial you're doing. Regardless how you feel about killing animals for humans, don't you want companies that can help people to actually move forward faster rather than slower?

treis 4y ago
They're not repeating all experiments.
- capableweb 4y ago
  I don't think anyone has claimed that either. What the claim is, is that Neuralink might have abnormally high number of repeated experiments as they continue to commit mistakes which makes them either have weak value or having to repeat the same trials. > the number of animal deaths is higher than it needs to be for reasons related to Musk’s demands to speed research. Through company discussions and documents spanning several years, along with employee interviews, Reuters identified four experiments involving 86 pigs and two monkeys that were marred in recent years by human errors. The mistakes weakened the experiments’ research value and required the tests to be repeated,
  - treis 4y ago
    >I don't think anyone has claimed that either You said they'd "have to double-run every trial you're doing". Which isn't correct. They have to double run the experiments they screwed up on. That may or may not be faster than taking the time to improve experiment quality.
radu_floricica 4y ago
That's isolated demand for rigor. You're basically saying that "yes, they're doing great work, and the average slaughterhouse is killing the same number of animals in a day or two, but they could be 10% more efficient and that makes them evil".

rideontime 4y ago

Do you think we're making monkey burgers?