Neuralink

What's your opinion on this whole Neuralink thing? Elon Musk is pretty genius imo. From my point of view though, the wireless nature of it seems to be incredibly hackable, but I'm also not wrapping my mind around it completely. From what I understand it has no control over what you do? It's the other way around? So is it like a server-client sort of deal? Isn't that still breakable? When it comes to the low level pulses, I feel like it doesn't matter if you can send your own signals/rewrite the low level stuff. Also, they're saying it's configured through something like an iPhone. And we've seen how secure Apple software is... So many questions. Wondering if someone on here could share some insight into this product.

It's just sticking wires into your brain in a way that prevents them from being rejected immediately. That's it. What now remains is 150 years of writing software.

Why do people think Elon is a genius? Not like he builds this stuff. He hires engineers. He's all funding and broad strategy. But no, nobody is gonna hack your brain. You don't really have much to worry about security-wise, unless of course it's possible to send too much brute current down and fry your tissues. It oughta be designed in a way which makes that impossible. Maybe some microamp fuses of some kind. I have no idea. But actual hacking? Anyone have any familiarity with the brain's kernel? Know what assembly code it runs? How its memory works in a way that's comprehensive enough to use from a computer science perspective? Nah I don't think so. That's all like 2500AD soykaf. If we make it that far. Seriously, we don't yet know enough to even appreciate how bad the complexity is. For now, think of this being like any other HID except you don't have access to the firmware. Can't understand the first thing about the firmware on this HID, or the hardware it runs on either. Total black box with a sub-processor that speaks bluetooth or something. So yeah, pretty thoroughly one-way. There are audio and video implants out there that can get low-resolution sound and images directly into the brain, but that's very early days and extremely custom-made to an individual person. And it strongly relies on the brain's own astonishing plasticity and ability to figure out stimulus, adapt to it--not so much our own understanding of how to send it proper input. The brain has done more work than we have so far. Which is weird to think about, since that's also it's work but in a different way. fuarrrking brains. >>18145 Yep. The remaining work is friggin enormous. Probably just gonna throw some ML at it and try and train it to do simple actions based on practiced thought exercises, which is how external BMIs pretty much already work. But this is under the skull so of course the SnR and resolution will be much better. And our non-carbon neural nets are getting faster and more sophisticated daily. But to build a BMI that understands your thoughts in a profound and nuanced way, plus feeds back sensory information with any kind of fidelity--that's still godtech. Be excited, but don't hold breath. Our neurophysiology has advanced by leaps and bounds, but compared to the total amount of knowledge necessary to have a deeply functional model of the brain--well, put it this way. If your dog watched you build a desktop computer, that dog would probably know proportionally more about silicon computing than we now know about our own wetware. Compared to our previous understanding, we're doing great--compared to a total understanding, we still have centuries of hard struggle. And even that is based upon too many assumptions. This soykaf is hard. Very hard problems.

>>18146 You're pretty much spot on. Elon is a businessman, not a genius. We don't know nearly enough about the brain itself yet for any progress to be made towards this AI singularity. This Nueralink is all talk and no results (because they've accomplished nothing yet - it's still in the planning/research stages). Because Elon has attached his name to it, as usual the media is hyping it up.

>>18146 >Why do people think Elon is a genius? Not like he builds this stuff. He hires engineers. He's all funding and broad strategy. The really funny thing is that he's always the first person to say this. In interviews, he's constantly using "we", not "I", when referring to various projects within his companies. For example, practically the first thing he did during the Falcon Heavy test flight post-launch press conference was talk up the contributions of others at SpaceX.

>>18151 >The really funny thing is that he's always the first person to say this. In interviews, he's constantly using "we", not "I", when referring to various projects within his companies. For example, practically the first thing he did during the Falcon Heavy test flight post-launch press conference was talk up the contributions of others at SpaceX. Even "we" is inaccurate, he should say "they". Saying "we" is tantamount to declaring himself equivalent to the scientist and engineers under his employ who actually do things.

Some guy on /g/ said this about it: >Actual neuroscientist here. >While excited about what they presented it is just the neuro version of what Elon has made untill now, a simplification/improvement of an existing method using cutting edge technology. >Patients may benefit from it, but unless they start developing the sondes of magical/living materials it will never be used by the general population. These things create scar tissue, and even the best currently have a life expectancy of less than a decade. After that? That part of your brain is basically dead and you will have to find another one. >Dont get too exited about it, embedded BMI are something not happening in the next couple of decades Thoughts?

>>18153 >>Actual neuoscientist here. >On /g/ I stopped believing there.

>>18144 I'm very excited for this, while it is pretty primitive at the moment and is mostly geared towards people who can barely function as regular people, this has the potential to change the world and how we go about our day to day lives as humans, I can't wait to see how this technology evolves in the future.

>>18153 I don't trust the authority of anyone that's anonymous, but especially someone who uses /g/

Essentially, enabling the ability to further study the brain, like never before. >>18145 Exactly right. Do not forget, the early programming languages. They might play a part in bridging the gap.

>>18152 >Even "we" is inaccurate, he should say "they". Saying "we" is tantamount to declaring himself equivalent to the scientist and engineers under his employ who actually do things. You are aware that he actually does some real engineering there, right? The business side of SpaceX is basically run by Gwynne Shotwell. Musk certainly doesn't do all the engineering solo, but he does have a very active day-to-day engineering role. I think "we" is an appropriate term for him to use when discussion engineering at SpaceX.

>>18152 Please don't underestimate the management work. If engineers/scientists had to find funding, distribute it, keep all accounts, do public relations, raise the hype, manage tasks, sit through a million meetings with all the potential partners and keep the big picture in mind - they'd never get to actual engineering. To each his own, and every role matters. It's like developing a game: if you start without the game engine and want to do everything on your own - you'll never deliver it.

>>18146 Pretty much this, the brain is the most complex thing we have yet encountered in the universe. And that is according the human brain, all the ideas and implications might be pretty neat but i want to see before believing. I mean, if this is going to be as much as a gamechanger as teslas saving the world, well, then we're still far off for sure.

>>18163 >Please don't underestimate the management work. If engineers/scientists had to find funding, distribute it, keep all accounts, do public relations, raise the hype, manage tasks, sit through a million meetings with all the potential partners and keep the big picture in mind - they'd never get to actual engineering. Big picture is the only thing on that list I don't consider either bureaucracy, or something to be dealt with by spokesmen. It's important within the current system that they be dealt with by certain secretaries, salesmen, or other talkers yes. Does that mean the secretaries, salesman, and other talkers should consider themselves to have "launched a rocket"? What about the janitors or the truck drivers? >>18161 >You are aware that he actually does some real engineering there, right? The business side of SpaceX is basically run by Gwynne Shotwell. Musk certainly doesn't do all the engineering solo, but he does have a very active day-to-day engineering role. I think "we" is an appropriate term for him to use when discussion engineering at SpaceX. Man look at all the engineering this guy does in his day-to-day: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-day-in-the-life-of-the-tesla-and-spacex-ceo-2012-7?r=US&IR=T In all seriousness though he's not a engineer, he's not trained as a engineer, he doesn't spend his time doing engineering. He's does public relations and is a money man.

>>18172 Stephan Wolfram is a pleasant contrast to this, I would be happy to live in a world where he was looked up to as Elon is currently, even failing to look beyond CEOs as role models.

>>18172 It requires serious amounts of mental gymnastics to deny the fact that Elon Musk is a significant contributor to his very own projects. On top of that, your post spreads blatant misinformation about him not spending his time doing engineering. According to his own words in 2017, around 80% of his time is spent on engineering and design. I have never read or heard any of the engineers who work with him deny this or call him simply a "public relations and money man". These engineers you imagine inside your head who work close to Musk do not seem to share the same views as you. If you do actual research on how these projects like Tesla, SpaceX or Neuralink work, you will realize these are collective efforts. This should be common sense. A single individual can not handle a large project like this. A single group of people with the same set of skills (like engineering) can not achieve this. These projects are interdisciplinar. From what I can gather, Musk acknowledges this and he's always keen on learning from people who know about some field better than him. He brings together talented people from various fields who share the same vision, these people learn from each other and form a very strong collective with a wide array of knowledge that surpass what a single individual could achieve. The contribution that any individual makes in this collective can be engineering, it can be business, it can be communications, it can be programming, it can be hardware. To claim for example that only engineers do the "actual work" is ridiculous. Yes, these contributions are invaluable, but so is everything else. If you remove the people who, for example, handle the business side, this collective will fail at supplying itself with the necessary resources to do the actual engineering. This collective collapses. The same happens if you remove the engineers, of course. Again, this should not be anything more than common sense. The picture I have attached is from https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html , written by a person who has real contact to these people. I recommend this article, I found it entertaining and if you are unaware of the belief system Elon Musk has and what motivates him to start these projects, it is informative. It's easy to talk down on people on the internet when you have never met them, especially when these people are rich, famous or have a lot of power. At some point they stop being humans and become abstract ideas somewhere far away, it's easy to project your own insecurities like that. But in the end they are meat and flesh with some jelly in their skull, just like you and everyone else.

>>18174 Forgot the image, here it is.

>>18174 >It requires serious amounts of mental gymnastics to deny the fact that Elon Musk is a significant contributor to his very own projects. On top of that, your post spreads blatant misinformation about him not spending his time doing engineering. According to his own words in 2017, around 80% of his time is spent on engineering and design. I know he likes to say he's a engineer yes, and that wasn't misinformation that was a independent third part following him around during his day. He's not trained as a engineer, he doesn't spend his time engineering. >I have never read or heard any of the engineers who work with him deny this or call him simply a "public relations and money man". These engineers you imagine inside your head who work close to Musk do not seem to share the same views as you. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/09/i-worked-with-elon-musk-and-learned-that-intelligence-is-not-the-key-to-success/ >If you do actual research on how these projects like Tesla, SpaceX or Neuralink work, you will realize these are collective efforts. This should be common sense. A single individual can not handle a large project like this. A single group of people with the same set of skills (like engineering) can not achieve this. These projects are interdisciplinar. From what I can gather, Musk acknowledges this and he's always keen on learning from people who know about some field better than him. He brings together talented people from various fields who share the same vision, these people learn from each other and form a very strong collective with a wide array of knowledge that surpass what a single individual could achieve. This is of course true. >The contribution that any individual makes in this collective can be engineering, it can be business, it can be communications, it can be programming, it can be hardware. To claim for example that only engineers do the "actual work" is ridiculous. Yes, these contributions are invaluable, but so is everything else. If you remove the people who, for example, handle the business side, this collective will fail at supplying itself with the necessary resources to do the actual engineering. This collective collapses. The same happens if you remove the engineers, of course. Again, this should not be anything more than common sense. I think this is just a matter of personal values or perspective. So you can probably imagine that one wouldn't say that as a janitor working for Space X you "launched a rocket". I think similarly of all the solicitors and financiers, I like Cockshott style centrally planned economies and aggressive automation. Ideally these individuals wouldn't exist and their human potential would be redirected towards something of actual use to humanity. I consider the people who actually make things to be contributing. >The picture I have attached is from https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html , written by a person who has real contact to these people. I recommend this article, I found it entertaining and if you are unaware of the belief system Elon Musk has and what motivates him to start these projects, it is informative. It's easy to talk down on people on the internet when you have never met them, especially when these people are rich, famous or have a lot of power. At some point they stop being humans and become abstract ideas somewhere far away, it's easy to project your own insecurities like that. But in the end they are meat and flesh with some jelly in their skull, just like you and everyone else. I haven't actually read about the neuralink yet but I was aware of his electric jets, changing humanity, becoming a multiplanet species etc, that motivates his other investments/philanthropy. The information given on that website is about what I would expect from this project and him.

>>18146 There are examples of successful brain manipulation already available. https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/11/3/387/2375059 A scenario where implants are used to steer general behaviour is entirely feasible with this.

>>18177 >I know he likes to say he's a engineer yes, and that wasn't misinformation that was a independent third part following him around during his day. He's not trained as a engineer, he doesn't spend his time engineering. This only proves that he wasn't engineering during that exact day while the crew was filming him. There is no basis to this claim that he doesn't do engineering. A video where Elon Musk isn't engineering is not proof that Elon Musk doesn't do engineering, I hope you understand how ridiculous this statement of your is. You could perhaps argue how much of the engineering he does in SpaceX, I doubt anyone would claim him as the lead engineer. But that's not the point; as I said, these projects are a collective effort and therefore any individual who contributes to the project is meaningful to its existence. >https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/09/i-worked-with-elon-musk-and-learned-that-intelligence-is-not-the-key-to-success/ A link to an article isn't necessarily an argument. This article seems to claim that Elon Musk is a very passionate person and passion is more important than intelligence when it comes to success. I agree with this, you can't achieve anything in life without passion no matter how intelligent you are. However, this article doesn't support the claim that he is nothing but "a public relations and money man". He obviously does much more than that, I think you are underestimating his contribution to these projects. >I think this is just a matter of personal values or perspective. So you can probably imagine that one wouldn't say that as a janitor working for Space X you "launched a rocket". I think similarly of all the solicitors and financiers, I like Cockshott style centrally planned economies and aggressive automation. Ideally these individuals wouldn't exist and their human potential would be redirected towards something of actual use to humanity. I consider the people who actually make things to be contributing. Perhaps in an ideal situation these people didn't have to exist, maybe I agree with you. But we don't live in that perfect world and these people are necessary to make large-scale projects like this happen. I think it's wrong to deny their contribution just because in a perfect world their contribution wouldn't be necessary. >I haven't actually read about the neuralink yet but I was aware of his electric jets, changing humanity, becoming a multiplanet species etc, that motivates his other investments/philanthropy. The information given on that website is about what I would expect from this project and him. I think the main point is that his motivation is to maximize the odds for a better future. For example, the idea of Tesla is to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy to avoid environmental issues in the future. This is achieved by making electric cars more accessible. This is achieved by manufacturing a popular electric car that leads to other established car manufacturers make their own.

ATTN: >>18156 >>18153 so don't trust anyone. we want neuroscientists present to explain it, not to pontificate inscrutably. ass.

it's interesting to say the least but it has some spooky implications. if this project is realized and marketed on the masses and you truly can control certain machines like you can control your body, then does the machine become a part of your body? and then is it possible to connect with all of the world in this way and become god, or was that possible from the very beginning and this is just another hurdle to "reset" us and keep us from doing so? will this be able to connect to the internet? if so will the internet control our thought process more than the underlying network of the senses the brain and the outside world (if it doesn't do so already lol)? would we be able to upload our consciousness? oh boy I hope that last one is a no. that unloads a whole other number of questions. either way I think this is interesting but we as a species need to be very very careful before we interfere with the one thing in our bodies that makes sense of the rest of the world for us.

>>18178 That's extremely interesting. Not much to add, just wanted to say so.

>>18144 I think it is really cool and terrifying at the same time. I welcome the technology into society and yet would never get such an implant myself. I disagree with >>18146 In order for such a system to work data has to be sent and received in a way that is understandable to machines and humans, meaning, machines have to have a mechanism for delivering data that is coherent to the human brain. Could the brain be able to filter that data? Propaganda is already an effective tool at changing a persons perspectives and thought patterns and that's with the data being an arm's length. Now imagine that data being injected into the brain. It wouldn't be too far of a stretch of the imagination that such a technology could be used in nefarious ways. Think about how you control a computer. Granted your brain has autonomy in a way that computers don't but it still makes decisions based on its sensory input and/or data at hand. Not to mention your brain being the control center of your body really creates a nightmare scenario where some rogue bit of "code" could cause people to drop dead on the spot. Digital Influenza?

>>18144 Mucks is a fuarrrking moron and putting any tech into just means being controlled by it, or whoever made it. I know lain is a cyberpunk anonymous imageboard channel. But that is the inevitable outcome. Sorry.

Truth be told I don't really see the point of this technology unless it can do both input and output by normal people. For a normal person it's not difficult to flip a light switch, to start their car, or type at a keyboard, because of this it seems like being able to control machines easier isn't really beneficial to normal people and for such people this would be more of a gimmick. When things start getting interesting is when you can offload computation or storage from your brain to such a device. This is also of course when things get frightening, especially considering the modern state of software.

>>18234 You're already offloading computation&storage using a regular computer. Some argue we are all already cyborgs running around with our smartphones extending our capabilities. A direct interface will just do two things: reduce lag and increase data transfer rate. It's a productivity increase ideally. This is the same issue as airgapped secure system vs computer with online access.

>>18235 >A direct interface will just do two things: reduce lag and increase data transfer rate. It's a productivity increase ideally. I guess, I just sort of doubt that being able to flip light switches or start your car quickly is going to be a productivity boot. Maybe something like typing could be, but that seems like a rather difficult thing for them to do right and even then it probably wouldn't be that significant of a gain depending on typing speed.

>>18227 We really don't have any protocol or format able to transmit something as sophisticated as propaganda into the brain, and no such knowledge is anywhere on the horizon. We can get output from the brain, but it's super simple output. We tune our hardware to what the brain is already doing, but we can't really tune the brain's hardware to our protocol or use a protocol it already understands. It's not really much of a two-way signal. Closest we can do is stimulate certain regions of the brain for vague, undirected feelings like anxiety or discomfort, but it's doubtful those regions of the brain would be wired for a BMI. There would be no reason to do risky, deep-brain surgery all over the place for no benefit to the primary function of the interface. BMI is going to be concentrated in one region optimal for output, not input. Kind of like in OP's image. At least until we have a faaaar more comprehensive understanding of our neurology. On the other hand, there's visual cortex implants in veeery early testing that can get maybe a 16x16 pixel image directly into your visual field, bypassing your eyes and optic nerves. That is extremely experimental tech, not very reliable, requires huge amounts of per-patient customization and adaptation, and once again isn't the same region of the brain targeted by a BMI. And it would have about the same effect as viewing propaganda on a screen, so no real risk increase versus where we are already. Maybe down the line, but we're talking way down the line. I'm afraid that propaganda and mind control from a neuralink headset is pure science fiction.

Reminder every brain is different. That's best showcased in those MRT studies that used machine learning to decode what a person saw on a screen. The important finding was you can't use one subjects training model on another person. For every subject you need to start new and train a personal model. I suppose this will also mean would need to decode the individual to craft a custom interface if you want to make it really work.

>>18236 Most people can barely type 40 wpm. A BMI could just skip the typing process entirely and enable people to input words faster than a stenographer (~300 wpm). If they figure out how to handle visual output you could control your device without moving a finger. Literally.

>>18240 Where are you getting these figures for BMI WPM? Just making them up with the assumption that the tech will be magic and perfect? Do you assume BMI tech won't require training (both ML training and operator training in the old-fashioned sense) and will have no learning curve or errors/limitations? This tech is very much still at a speculative stage, and we're quickly approaching the top of the hype curve. We'll get some more realistic ideas of its practical uses once we hit that trough of disillusionment. It happens with every new tech; we should be expecting it by now.

>>18239 >decode the individual to craft a custom interface if you want to make it really work. from my understanding it relies on neuroplasticity. in other words instead of crafting an interface to the brain you let the brain craft an interface to the device. its not much different than playing an instrument or driving a car, it's just more immediate because its the result of direct neural impulses instead of impulses filtered through your muscular system. i have no idea if it would actually work but in theory it should after a period of physical therapy. this has been the holy grail of biohacking for a good while now. the closest im aware of is that guy who put an antenna in his head so he could perceive microwave radiation.

>>18245 it would probably feel kind of like controlling one of those prosthetic arms that hook up to muscles on your back.

>>18245 >antenna in head Did it work? That aside it seems dangerous to simply put it in and hope neuroplasticity will do the rest. You already got something assigned in that space. Adjusting for the implant means erasing whatever function it had before.

Are brain implants concussion/infection/pollution/security-cracker-proof/resistant? Yes or No?

>>18174 that is a super tl;dr way of saying that the truck driver and the guy who makes the coffee launched a rocket. thanks

>>18146 People think that Elon is a genius because no one else is willing to blow money on random soykaf like this. He funds 10 different companies that are trying to produce breakthroughs, and if even 1-2 of them succeed, he goes down in history. As a person I think he's kind of an idiot, he's clearly socially stunted and makes insanely bad decisions sometimes, but overall, he has been at the forefront of popularizing fully electric and self-driving cars, and renewing the space race. None of this was done personally by him, but it's his brazen disregard for good business practices that lead to culture paying attention to him and what he's doing. If he had invested in the wrong companies then he'd just be another eccentric businessman. Instead, he started/invested in the right companies, and now he has "fuarrrk you" money to mess around with for soykaf like Neuralink. His product will probably not be the huge game-changer, but if he produces POCs that interest people and cause other big companies to explore the field more aggressively, then it could lead to something.

>>18262 I do agree that it's refreshing to see an executive in this day and age that rejects the 'increase shareholder value at all costs' paradigm and actually makes betterment of society the mission statement of the company. Maybe some of those ventures are misguided, but no matter the specifics I think we need to really be moving away from this bogus Milton Friedman crap. Seriously, many people these days think that the Friedman doctrine is somehow a law. That all corporations have a legal imperative to serve the shareholders above anything else, indeed that shareholder value is the ONLY concern of a company. Milton made that soykaf up. Pure nonsense. He's a hack. His theories are pure dreck. I have no idea why people pay attention to his voodoo economics. But yeah, Elon has his issues but at least he illustrates that good things can happen when a company aims for higher goals than rote growth and dividends.

It's so pointless. People don't want to use VR because it's too much of a pain in the ass - do you think they will get brain implants? This crap is like flying cars, jet packs, Mars colonization, laser weapons etc - impractical ideas from old science-fiction movies. Nobody actually needs it.

>>18256 lol is any other part of your body proofed against all that? Possibly security cracker proof, but arguably people's psychology has plenty of security vulns without needing a fancy brain interface.

>>18291 Nobody actually needs anything. We could all be eating berries and jacking off in the woods right now. But if it's at all successful then it'll probably be on the fringe for ages and then finally catch on way later than people would have thought. I mean computers were that way until not too long ago. They had a place in business, but personal computers were toys for nerds until the late nineties or so. VR has been a forced meme for a long time, but it's finally gathering a little bit of steam. It'll eventually be a thing. I mean it's already a thing, some of it is pretty decent. Maybe not a totally ubiquitous mainstream thing, but it doesn't really have to be. That said, I kind of agree--BMI is flying car jet pack fusion power mars soykaf. It's way off. Way way off. We aren't gonna make a PCIe bridge to our corpus callosum anytime soon, Musk or not.

time to turn into a meat puppet i guess...

>>18304 I would use VR if I didn't need killer specs for my PC and could afford the headset and all of it's accessories.

>>18146 Thinking of a brain as a traditional computer isn't at all the right way to think about this. It isn't a simple machine that does its operations one by one. It is a parallel processor which works much like a bunch of super complex neural networks communicating using chemicals. If you poke in roughly the right places you might throw off someone's balance or trigger something else which acts like that part of the brain just received some of a certain hormone. We know roughly what parts of the brain do what and where to trigger neurons to get a certain result. Finding what places to trigg£er all be done by observing signals and by trail and error. Of course you won't achieve anything super complex, you wont be projecting images in someones brain anytime soon. But ruining someones balance on the stairs could be easy.

Nerve Stapler (TLS(P)): A device originally designed for psychotherapy, but often applied on both Earth and Planet to deal with social dissension. When strapped to a patient's head and upper back, the nerve stapler extrudes hair-fine probes into his brain and spinal column. A psychotherapist can then use the device to inflict extreme sensations (not necessarily pain) on the patient, subjecting him to a rapid course of psychological conditioning. The patient must make a Will roll every hour that he is under the nerve stapler, or he will acquire the Nerve Stapled disadvantage (p. 89). A nerve stapler can also be used as a torture device when applying the Interrogation skill (p. B66).

Musk is no fuarrrking Tesla, he's an Edison motherfucker.

>>18360 Begging the question then... WHO is Tesla to his Edison?

Well about wiring the brain i remember seeing this many years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgmoz4f8LA4 Dude has a pretty prolific career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodolfo_Llin%C3%A1s

>>18361 I mean Musk hasn't invented anything. The only name I could find that was comparable to Tesla is Tim Berners Lee .

>>18361 Not every Edison has a Tesla; most just have a crew of regular, run-of-the-mill engineers. Which is still a force to be reckoned with. But actual genius is ludicrously rare. Hardly any are born in any given century. The power to forge truly novel new science and totally original creativity is beyond basically all humans.

>>18355 Yeah, but afaik neuralink doesn't do any kind of input to the brain, only output. And they don't have any really credible plans to do so in the future (perhaps some press release blurbs for publicity's sake, but nothing tangible). Input is still too vague and custom and frankly dangerous. And neuralink's electrode mat is a small square positioned over one's motor cortex; maybe if you could trick the hardware into sending back current you could cause a muscle spasm like you say, but I think that falls under: >unless of course it's possible to send too much brute current down and fry your tissues. It oughta be designed in a way which makes that impossible. Maybe some microamp fuses of some kind. I have no idea. And certainly input advanced enough to push a specific agenda beyond "fuarrrk this guy, let's give him a seizure" isn't possible with neuralink. It has been done with other brain implant technologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_brain_stimulation I'd frankly be much more nervous with one of these in my head versus a neuralink, but I'm sure it beats epilepsy or Parkinson's. Note in the article it states that we still don't understand its mechanism very well, so we'd probably have some serious work to do before going forward with broader applications. But eventually I bet we will figure something out.

Neuroscientists decode brain speech signals into written text Study funded by Facebook aims to improve communication with paralysed patients http://archive.is/P7lKD I have a feeling this sphere of technology will advance fast over the coming decade. atm I can only see it being used by those that REALLY need it.

>>18360 Agreed. Ohhh the irony.