4 ms·
> Always good to see novel uses of ML. However, let's not pretend this will ever offer any benefit to people with spinal cord injuries. Apart from the person
by _joel 3y ago
> Always good to see novel uses of ML. However, let's not pretend this will ever offer any benefit to people with spinal cord injuries.
Apart from the person in their study who can now walk, that had the spinal injury (with the use of a crawler)...
In relation to your second point, you are aware regenereative science and this implant approach can progress in parallel? This offers something tangible, plus with more refining can be rolled out en masse. What regenerative science can be applied now that would give such a quality of life improvement?
- 0xbadc0de5 3y agoThe research subject has an incomplete C5/C6 injury and still cannot walk unassisted. Not to mention still has limited use of their hands and likely severely impacted somatosensation. It's not physically possible to manufacture implants dense enough to re-map the entirety (or even a useful fraction) of motor and sensory pathways. Attempting to implant a significant number of artificial electrodes also risks further damage. I'm not claiming that regenerative treatments and implants can't progress in parallel. I'm simply claiming implants are a dead-end and are distracting resources away from regenerative research.
- _joel 3y agoYou literally said this wouldn't help spinal injuries, which the PoC has and now you're changing it to 'unassisted' Do you have data to show funding gets moved away from regenerative research?