6 ms·

Doesn't matter. That hype will draw attention, which will draw investors, which will draw in money to pay for the best researchers until they become SOTA. If 3

Doesn't matter. That hype will draw attention, which will draw investors, which will draw in money to pay for the best researchers until they become SOTA. If 3 years ago the tech was available then how come the Neuralink patients never got that? I'm sure they'd be the first to sign up. Distribution is part of innovation. Brain computer interfaces exist but those who would be willing to undergo the procedure to get them don't have that option, then an inefficiency exists in the market that can be filled by a competitor. Musk's companies play on the same field as everyone else, but they continue to win because operating efficiency, mind-share and tactics are all part of the game, and he is the best at winning it in many domains. Edit: I understand the ethical considerations of such a nascent technology. I just feel that we live in a world where miracles exist that could help thousands of lives, but they move too slowly to help those lives. How long are paralyzed people waiting for a cheap way to have some more agency in the world? Is the only way to reach it being available sooner doing unscrupulous things that buck safety requirements?

Arainach 1y ago
>If 3 years ago the tech was available then how come the Neuralink patients never got that? I'm sure they'd be the first to sign up. Because other companies have ethics and follow the rules and best practices. They register their clinical trials with the NIH and they stop and ask questions if half the monkeys they test on end up dead.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- xvector 1y ago
  It's entirely possible to spend so long trying to remove the rough edges and be perfectly safe that you kill the people you were trying to save via the sheer passage of time.
- wombatpm 1y ago
  Because the FDA slowed down his chimp studies and wouldn’t let him combine Neurallink, FSD testing and NHSA crash testing into the same experiment for faster iterations.
cramsession 1y ago
That's not how things have played out with Tesla. They have all the investment in the world and the most irrational valuation to have ever graced the public markets, yet their tech is years behind competitors.
- d0gsg0w00f 1y ago
  But they were first to market. That's 90% of the work. There's a huge gap between "perfect unrealized idea" and "shit you can actually buy". Hate the man all you want, he'll go down in history as the Edison of electric vehicles, even though others will undoubtedly surpass the initial public offering technologically.
  - cramsession 1y ago
    The claim was that Musk's companies will "win" though, and they aren't (aside from the irrational valuation). Maybe Space X is winning, but Tesla is a minor player in the auto market with declining revenue.
  - dghlsakjg 1y ago
    First to what market? Electric cars have been sold since the 1800s (electric vehicles predate the 4-cycle internal combustion engine). Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota all had serial production of EVs in the 1990s or earlier. The land speed record holder in 1900 was an electric vehicle. Tesla wasn't first, they were relatively late, they just got it right in a number of ways. Self driving? Maybe, but there is a lot of argument about whether a Tesla is self driving. Based on the fact that Tesla themselves require a human driver ready to intervene, it isn't a credible claim.
    - d0gsg0w00f 1y ago
      Of course others were first to the technology, but you can't argue with Tesla being first to get EVs in the hands of everyday consumers. That's the market part of "first to market".
rendaw 1y ago
> we live in a world where miracles exist that could help thousands of lives, but they move too slowly to help those lives Do you understand what you're saying? Too slowly in contrast to "move fast and break things" where "things" = "people"? In a thread about the risks of tesla killing pedestrians? This is classic supervillain logic.

Arainach 1y ago

>If 3 years ago the tech was available then how come the Neuralink patients never got that? I'm sure they'd be the first to sign up. Because other companies have ethics and follow the rules and best practices. They register their clinical trials with the NIH and they stop and ask questions if half the monkeys they test on end up dead.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
xvector 1y ago
It's entirely possible to spend so long trying to remove the rough edges and be perfectly safe that you kill the people you were trying to save via the sheer passage of time.
wombatpm 1y ago
Because the FDA slowed down his chimp studies and wouldn’t let him combine Neurallink, FSD testing and NHSA crash testing into the same experiment for faster iterations.

cramsession 1y ago

That's not how things have played out with Tesla. They have all the investment in the world and the most irrational valuation to have ever graced the public markets, yet their tech is years behind competitors.

d0gsg0w00f 1y ago
But they were first to market. That's 90% of the work. There's a huge gap between "perfect unrealized idea" and "shit you can actually buy". Hate the man all you want, he'll go down in history as the Edison of electric vehicles, even though others will undoubtedly surpass the initial public offering technologically.
- cramsession 1y ago
  The claim was that Musk's companies will "win" though, and they aren't (aside from the irrational valuation). Maybe Space X is winning, but Tesla is a minor player in the auto market with declining revenue.
- dghlsakjg 1y ago
  First to what market? Electric cars have been sold since the 1800s (electric vehicles predate the 4-cycle internal combustion engine). Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota all had serial production of EVs in the 1990s or earlier. The land speed record holder in 1900 was an electric vehicle. Tesla wasn't first, they were relatively late, they just got it right in a number of ways. Self driving? Maybe, but there is a lot of argument about whether a Tesla is self driving. Based on the fact that Tesla themselves require a human driver ready to intervene, it isn't a credible claim.
  - d0gsg0w00f 1y ago
    Of course others were first to the technology, but you can't argue with Tesla being first to get EVs in the hands of everyday consumers. That's the market part of "first to market".

rendaw 1y ago

> we live in a world where miracles exist that could help thousands of lives, but they move too slowly to help those lives Do you understand what you're saying? Too slowly in contrast to "move fast and break things" where "things" = "people"? In a thread about the risks of tesla killing pedestrians? This is classic supervillain logic.