4 ms·

Monkeys typing with Neuralink also seemed like a Cut and Dry demonstration of the potential usefulness of the device. I'm baffled as to how you can say "fyi it

Monkeys typing with Neuralink also seemed like a Cut and Dry demonstration of the potential usefulness of the device. I'm baffled as to how you can say "fyi it's fundamentally broken" without giving more detail.

bfeynman 4y ago
physiologically, the devices have a limited lifespan due to fact that the tissue will start scarring over and render the electrodes worthless, it's an invasive procedure that can only be done once or twice. Neuronal actions are chemical interactions, not digital computer signals as well. I agree the work they've done is kind of exciting, but they didn't solve one of the crucial issues that's been blocking the field and technology from flourishing, implantable electrodes have been around for a long time.
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  Thank you for explaining yourself. Searching 'neuralink "scar"' ('' removed) got me information about the ethical issues of Neuralink@UC Davis, and a 2020 article about potential polymers to use in the wires. I will continue to wait and see how the tech develops - I certainly was never planning on being one of the first early adopters anyways, but I still see a lot of potential for Paraplegics, and then obviously Consumer usage eventually.
  - bfeynman 4y ago
    I'm not expert but was involved in adjacent field, so I do not have a singular explanation and one pager. Neuroscience/biology research is complex, but a good indicator is that there are hundreds of papers on trying to modulate responses to implants. They have not gotten very far on a resilient solution to it, and like I said, it's been decades since they've discovered this problem and the fact that neural link doesn't even bring it up leads me to believe they are just BS ing everyone in the same way elon ignored major questions about FSD for tesla, they are nowhere near solving the actual crux of the issue.

bfeynman 4y ago

physiologically, the devices have a limited lifespan due to fact that the tissue will start scarring over and render the electrodes worthless, it's an invasive procedure that can only be done once or twice. Neuronal actions are chemical interactions, not digital computer signals as well. I agree the work they've done is kind of exciting, but they didn't solve one of the crucial issues that's been blocking the field and technology from flourishing, implantable electrodes have been around for a long time.

nullish_signal 4y ago
Thank you for explaining yourself. Searching 'neuralink "scar"' ('' removed) got me information about the ethical issues of Neuralink@UC Davis, and a 2020 article about potential polymers to use in the wires. I will continue to wait and see how the tech develops - I certainly was never planning on being one of the first early adopters anyways, but I still see a lot of potential for Paraplegics, and then obviously Consumer usage eventually.
- bfeynman 4y ago
  I'm not expert but was involved in adjacent field, so I do not have a singular explanation and one pager. Neuroscience/biology research is complex, but a good indicator is that there are hundreds of papers on trying to modulate responses to implants. They have not gotten very far on a resilient solution to it, and like I said, it's been decades since they've discovered this problem and the fact that neural link doesn't even bring it up leads me to believe they are just BS ing everyone in the same way elon ignored major questions about FSD for tesla, they are nowhere near solving the actual crux of the issue.