Topic: Elon Musk wants to merge humans with AI. How many brains will be damaged along the way?
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #115,773
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,279,042
No idea why we're still talking about what this retarded manchild wants or thinks
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,054
link to the vox article you monkey man
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,055
boof joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,056
the human barn is a peculiar thing
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,059
Imagine hoping that people will be hurt just so your blog can dunk on Elon. Neuralink has a 100% success rate on its singular human patient so far. There's nothing to be outraged over
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,060
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,061
"Secretive brain-chip company" ... oh, do they mean it's not a public company they can manipulate and short in the markets? Guess we know why they're so upset.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,062
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,063
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,064
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,066
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,068
@1,279,064 (B)
Simple rule of thumb: If the article headline is a question, the answer is "No". In this case, "How many brains will be damaged?" You don't have that information and to speculate on it wildly is more harmful than not. They're framing the creation of an improved version of a medical device as some evil plot. Yellow journalism.
Simple rule of thumb: If the article headline is a question, the answer is "No". In this case, "How many brains will be damaged?" You don't have that information and to speculate on it wildly is more harmful than not. They're framing the creation of an improved version of a medical device as some evil plot. Yellow journalism.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,070
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,071
For context, this technique has been in development since the late 90s, but the threads were too big and the machine that inserted them was too slow. In the 2010s we started seeing working brain implants in humans using this technique. This isn't new. Don't suddenly get mad just because an Elon company does it better. That's the uncritical response
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,074
@previous (F)
I've yet to see evidence of him doing it better. But I do appreciate you're somewhat aware of the history.
I've yet to see evidence of him doing it better. But I do appreciate you're somewhat aware of the history.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,075
@previous (B)
Smaller threads, and smaller implant means it's less invasive. Faster, safer insertion of more threads and more capable chip makes for a more useful device. I can tell you're interested in the subject, so I'd recommend looking into everything they've improved on. It's a tough problem and they're doing great.
Smaller threads, and smaller implant means it's less invasive. Faster, safer insertion of more threads and more capable chip makes for a more useful device. I can tell you're interested in the subject, so I'd recommend looking into everything they've improved on. It's a tough problem and they're doing great.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,076
@previous (F)
That's great, except it's still largely irrelevant until they can prevent scar tissue from forming as it always does.
Optogenetics will be the future. Except the R&D still needs probably a decade or more of work. Which means it'll remain in the academy for that time until it's all but one step away from total completion. Then and only then will some autistic manchild step in to take everything private and benefit from hundreds of millions and decades of public investment.
Kind of like how pharmaceutical R&D works.
That's great, except it's still largely irrelevant until they can prevent scar tissue from forming as it always does.
Optogenetics will be the future. Except the R&D still needs probably a decade or more of work. Which means it'll remain in the academy for that time until it's all but one step away from total completion. Then and only then will some autistic manchild step in to take everything private and benefit from hundreds of millions and decades of public investment.
Kind of like how pharmaceutical R&D works.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,077
@previous (B)
The main way to avoid the scar tissue problem is to create minimal damage in the first place. So that's the main aim. Another side of it is that if your chip is still able to decipher the degraded signal, you're fine. It keeps working. That's part of why Neuralink is going to be a leader in BCI technology. They've got better software on the chips. If you know the signal degrades over time, build a chip that will see through the haze so to speak. And that's what they've done. It's adaptive!
The main way to avoid the scar tissue problem is to create minimal damage in the first place. So that's the main aim. Another side of it is that if your chip is still able to decipher the degraded signal, you're fine. It keeps working. That's part of why Neuralink is going to be a leader in BCI technology. They've got better software on the chips. If you know the signal degrades over time, build a chip that will see through the haze so to speak. And that's what they've done. It's adaptive!
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,083
@previous (F)
Sounds like I'm reading a sales brochure lol.
Educate yourself on optogenetics. You sound like someone trying to sell vacuum tubes in an era where the transistor was already known and being actively developed. What's most weird is that I know you're not being paid. I just don't get it. How does one get hoards of idiots to promote their financial interests that otherwise have no merit of their own? Shitpost a few memes every so often? Put up a thin attempt of trying to be like "the kids these days"? Give some two-bit retard a reason to believe they'll be just like their god some day?
In America there are no poor people, only disgraced billionaires.
Sounds like I'm reading a sales brochure lol.
Educate yourself on optogenetics. You sound like someone trying to sell vacuum tubes in an era where the transistor was already known and being actively developed. What's most weird is that I know you're not being paid. I just don't get it. How does one get hoards of idiots to promote their financial interests that otherwise have no merit of their own? Shitpost a few memes every so often? Put up a thin attempt of trying to be like "the kids these days"? Give some two-bit retard a reason to believe they'll be just like their god some day?
In America there are no poor people, only disgraced billionaires.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,090
@previous (B)
You dont understand why humans may have hope at the idea of a neural link type device?
You dont understand why humans may have hope at the idea of a neural link type device?
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,092
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,093
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,094
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,095
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,096
@previous (F)
Can't refute what I'm saying, so just declare victory anyway!
It's been fun. Try harder and think a little more next time.
Can't refute what I'm saying, so just declare victory anyway!
It's been fun. Try harder and think a little more next time.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,097
@previous (B)
You didn't say anything worth responding to. "Go study in an academic field with no practical application in the current day" is not a reasonable reply to being told the current thing is good now and why it's better than the version you're familiar with. Again, you're just upset that Elon's company pulled it together instead of letting the tech die on the shelf at some ancient failing company in the Midwest
You didn't say anything worth responding to. "Go study in an academic field with no practical application in the current day" is not a reasonable reply to being told the current thing is good now and why it's better than the version you're familiar with. Again, you're just upset that Elon's company pulled it together instead of letting the tech die on the shelf at some ancient failing company in the Midwest
(Edited 14 minutes later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,099
@1,279,092 (B)
Because it appears as though you believe people are cheering him on due to their love of billionaires
Because it appears as though you believe people are cheering him on due to their love of billionaires
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 27 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,104
@1,279,097 (F)
I'm happy to discuss with you further. I really am. But you're going to have to do a better job of assuming good faith on my end. I have and will continue to do so for you, despite you only giving me indication that you're not discussing any of this in earnest. You may not like how I say what I say, but it doesn't make it any less true.
> "Go study in an academic field with no practical application in the current day"
For now all I'm going to say about that is that you should really educate yourself on what I mentioned above. If this forum is around long enough and you're still posting here, which I know you will be, I'll find your comment and raise it to your attention again. I'll have a good laugh. I hope you will too, but you seem to have some trouble with humour so, I wouldn't want to presume.
Oh, another thing, could you explain to your wife why her question was so off-base? Maybe clue her in on how money or even the promise of it can have such a profound influence on one's belief systems. Maybe you can think of some examples that will speak to her. Talking with her can get a bit tedious. Although I'm sure I don't need to tell you that.
I'm happy to discuss with you further. I really am. But you're going to have to do a better job of assuming good faith on my end. I have and will continue to do so for you, despite you only giving me indication that you're not discussing any of this in earnest. You may not like how I say what I say, but it doesn't make it any less true.
> "Go study in an academic field with no practical application in the current day"
For now all I'm going to say about that is that you should really educate yourself on what I mentioned above. If this forum is around long enough and you're still posting here, which I know you will be, I'll find your comment and raise it to your attention again. I'll have a good laugh. I hope you will too, but you seem to have some trouble with humour so, I wouldn't want to presume.
Oh, another thing, could you explain to your wife why her question was so off-base? Maybe clue her in on how money or even the promise of it can have such a profound influence on one's belief systems. Maybe you can think of some examples that will speak to her. Talking with her can get a bit tedious. Although I'm sure I don't need to tell you that.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,105
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,108
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,109
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,113
@previous (F)
Every time the discussion starts to get interesting, you storm off. It's almost like whenever there's a threat you may have to think about something, you run. But you can't run from yourself, my friend.
Every time the discussion starts to get interesting, you storm off. It's almost like whenever there's a threat you may have to think about something, you run. But you can't run from yourself, my friend.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,114
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,116
@previous (F)I always enjoy talking to you. I just wish you weren't so reactive and sour grapes all the time. There are tons of interesting topics to discuss in this unprecedented time in history. But you'd rather mindlessly proceed through life and never have any challenge or criticism come your way. You'd rather just adopt whatever's convenient for you. Don't worry about. If we just refuse to think about some possibilities, that surely means they aren't true, right?
If you want to live like that, maybe stop posting here. Or better, get off the internet entirely. 4real
