Elon lied about the monkeys — and he shouldn't be trusted to put his Neuralink chips in human brains.
"They are claiming they are going to put a safe device on the market, and that's why you should invest," Ryan Merkley at the Physicians Committee, told Wired. "And we see his lie as a way to whitewash what happened in these exploratory studies."
Really heartbreaking reading what happened to the monkeys.
People quite rightly think of Elizabeth Holmes as a fraud for making false medical claims about what the Theranos machines could do. So why aren't Elon's claims at Neuralink being held to the same level of scrutiny?
https://futurism.com/neoscope/terrible-things-monkeys-neuralink-implants
@ajsadauskas @technology
I was astounded to read Neuralink is to be permitted to experiment on humans. Instead they should have any animal experiment licences revoked.
🇳🇱
Why? We already have brain interface links that do similar damage to neuralink, this isnt unusual or unexpected. In its current form it is rightfully used on terminal patients with locked-in syndom. In other words, people before it damaged their brain in a meaningful way and whom cant be further paralyzed.
It would give these people a chance at someinteraction with the real world... What happened with the monkeys was about in line with other neural interfaces, its a consequence of the limits of the tech not negligence.
@freemo @ajsadauskas @technology
If there are already such implants why licence a company that seems less than, um, straight.
Point is what happened the monkeys is perfectly normal and expected... so nothing "not straight" about that (other than the sadness of animal testing)...
That said I dont like them as a companya nd wouldnt buy an implant off of them if I needed one, sure... but you'd need a pretty solid objective reason to actually block them.
@freemo Tell us more about this damage that other brain interface links do. Like, what links, and what damage?
@kctipton Sire id be happy to talk about it, its a topic I have some knowledge on.
So most brain-computer interfaces look like a plate with a bunch of spikes on it they stick into your brain... its quite crude. See image B in the link below:
They are designed to not cause rejection, but they arent perfect. With all direct brain-computer interfaces over periods of time scar tissue forms around the side of the implant. This causes the brain to die in that area and damage to be caused. For people who are terminal and paralyzed, so this isnt an issue, they may just move it to a new site.. but sadly these other direct interfaces arent much better.
That said there are indirect interfaces to control computers. These use external sensors... They are far less effective and dont provide the level of control of the direct interfaces. But because they are safer they are used when the patient isnt terminal.
I’m not well-versed on the subject, but can locked-in patients consent to these risks? How do we know they want to risk getting these life-threatening side effects?
@kungen they would need to conscent somehow... some have the ability to blink. In other cases they can use a non invasive approach to get a yes or no out of them.... so yes
That said if someone has power of attorny over thrm they would legally need to approve
I hear the full self driving mode of the brain chips come out next year.