6 ms·

This article is hot garbage. There’s a reference to a “termination order” but they then seem to extrapolate that to “terminating” the… device which they’ve anth

This article is hot garbage. There’s a reference to a “termination order” but they then seem to extrapolate that to “terminating” the… device which they’ve anthropomorphized? > It was more than a device being explanted from Patient R brain. Rather, the company was responsible for the creation of a new person. > The device was the property of the company, not of the patient, despite the fact she appropriated the de novo agential capacities – resulting in an existential dependency with the BCI. What does that even mean? I understand that this had a profound effect on her life, but the writing buries the lead here.

jsmith45 3y ago
This article was based on this one, which is a little better: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/05/25/1073634/brain-implant-removed-against-her-will/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/05/25/1073634/brain-im.... That in turn was based mostly the paper linked at the beginning, which was mostly concerned with the medical ethics of the scenario. A different article elsewhere has claimed that the reason for the removal was actually that the device had a three year battery life. So even if she had legal ownership of the device (which seems unclear), it would die before too much longer. Replacing the battery in situ probably wasn't feasible. (How many brain surgeons are also micro-electronics experts, etc?) No doctor would remove it, give it to a third party to replace the battery and then reimplant it. Even if they did, who could say if the external unit would need to be recalibrated to adjust for tiny differences in placement? And only a defunct company could do that. Leaving it in there after the battery dies could be a problem. (If the battery ever corrosive leaked and burned through the implants shell... )

6 ms·

This article is hot garbage. There’s a reference to a “termination order” but they then seem to extrapolate that to “terminating” the… device which they’ve anth

by graypegg 3y ago

jsmith45 3y ago
This article was based on this one, which is a little better: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/05/25/1073634/brain-implant-removed-against-her-will/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/05/25/1073634/brain-im.... That in turn was based mostly the paper linked at the beginning, which was mostly concerned with the medical ethics of the scenario. A different article elsewhere has claimed that the reason for the removal was actually that the device had a three year battery life. So even if she had legal ownership of the device (which seems unclear), it would die before too much longer. Replacing the battery in situ probably wasn't feasible. (How many brain surgeons are also micro-electronics experts, etc?) No doctor would remove it, give it to a third party to replace the battery and then reimplant it. Even if they did, who could say if the external unit would need to be recalibrated to adjust for tiny differences in placement? And only a defunct company could do that. Leaving it in there after the battery dies could be a problem. (If the battery ever corrosive leaked and burned through the implants shell... )