[HN Gopher] A skeptic's take on Neuralink and other consumer neu...
___________________________________________________________________
A skeptic's take on Neuralink and other consumer neurotech
Author : hhs
Score : 44 points
Date : 2021-04-08 15:17 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.statnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.statnews.com)
| ctdonath wrote:
| Overwrought criticism. Yes, we're at that wildly imaginative
| stage where a small & hard step down a long road of undeveloped
| technology gives rise to hopes of what the end of that decades-
| hence goal will achieve. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and
| doesn't mean we'll give up tablets for brain implants next year.
| Yes those leading the way give impassioned speeches about what
| might come of their work - that's ok, really.
| kelnos wrote:
| The article doesn't at all suggest we shouldn't try, and
| explicitly points out that there will likely be a lot of
| benefits to science and neurosurgery due to this influx in
| funding.
|
| The point is to remind us that all of the hype around this is
| just that: hype.
| [deleted]
| sschueller wrote:
| What Musk is pedaling is pure science function. [1] Eventually
| all of this will catch up with him and he will fall very hard.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/BvmA_gQ-95c
| chrisweekly wrote:
| "science function" - maybe a freudian slip, vs "science
| fiction"?
|
| (and it's "peddling" as in "selling", not "pedaling" like
| riding a bike)
| devindotcom wrote:
| "science function" is actually pretty great.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| agreed! I enjoyed the comment on a couple levels :)
| JoshCole wrote:
| Notice, for the first few minutes of that video, it shows a
| mounting degree of credibility on the part of Nueralink as PhDs
| with expertise on relevant topics are noted, but then quite
| abruptly the tone shifts and it plays a comedy sketch [1]. Why?
| Apply common sense and skepticism to that question and you will
| be enlightened. I'll give you a hint: common sense does not
| indicate, like the YouTube channel implies, that the richest
| person in the world gets there by providing absolutely no value
| to the rooms he enters. In order to have that implication a
| resort to a different rhetorical technique than that of reason
| is necessary. The creator of the video understood this and
| employed such a technique.
|
| The video tries to argue that Elon Musk is trying to steal
| credit for founding the company [2]. He doesn't actually quote
| Elon Musk when he accuses him of stealing credit. Why does he
| circle text on Wikipedia rather than quote Elon Musk? If you go
| to the Wikipedia article and check the citations for that claim
| you will discover Elon Musk does not state the thing which the
| liar in the video states that he claims. Why does he lie about
| what Elon Musk actually said? Apply common sense and skepticism
| to that question and you will be enlightened. I'll give you a
| hint: he is working backward from a narrative, not forward from
| the facts.
|
| Alternatively, want to do a long bet for $10k that in 10 years
| Musk will still be a millionaire despite the contents of the
| video you linked? Void of bet in the event that some other
| cause leads to misfortune.
|
| [1]: https://youtu.be/BvmA_gQ-95c?t=155 [2]:
| https://youtu.be/BvmA_gQ-95c?t=185
| ALittleLight wrote:
| "Consumers have shown time and again that they are reluctant to
| adopt products that look funny (ahem, Google Glass)."
|
| I think this is misreading Google Glass. People didn't like or
| want to use Google Glass because there was no "killer app" for
| them. There was no useful app for Glass at all so far as I am
| aware. Had Google Glass enabled something new and useful people
| would have worn it regardless of how different it looked, and
| because people found use in wearing it we would get used to it.
|
| Headphones are an example of this. Headphones would probably look
| goofy if you weren't used to seeing them. People wear headphones
| anyway because headphones deliver something useful to the wearer
| - private audio.
|
| If I had to wear a silly hat, but in exchange could carry around
| a meaningful brain-computer interface, I absolutely would, and,
| assuming "meaningful" in a broad sense, I'm certain huge numbers
| of people would as well.
|
| Right now people are struggling to make the tech work at all.
| Worrying about the form factor with which it will be delivered is
| premature - it can't really do anything yet. Once it's useful it
| will need a good form factor, but the use will drive adoption,
| not the other way around.
| skissane wrote:
| > I think this is misreading Google Glass. People didn't like
| or want to use Google Glass because there was no "killer app"
| for them
|
| I think the other reason why people didn't want to adopt Google
| Glass, is the stories about other people objecting to people
| wearing them-primarily because of privacy concerns, that the
| devices were capable of recording video, and that while a phone
| camera can record video too, it is somewhat more obvious if
| someone is doing it with a phone camera than with Google Glass.
| If a product is going to be a social hassle, if other people
| and businesses are going to object to your use of it, a lot of
| people will decide the negative social consequences aren't
| worth it.
|
| Something like Google Glass specifically targeted to people
| with disabilities would be more acceptable, because someone
| using it can always say that it is for their disability, at
| which point most people would be more forgiving, plus if any
| business tries to ban it they run the legal and PR risk of
| being accused of disability discrimination.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| VR glasses also. I love the Quest despite it being half a kilo
| and barely staying put witout holding it.
|
| People have shown time and again they will adopt something they
| love, no matter how grotesquely bulky, like brick cellphones
| pharke wrote:
| Exactly, glasses are an even better example. They give you
| superior vision compared to what you would have naturally so
| almost everyone who needs them puts up with wearing them and
| they have even become a fashion trend in themselves by being so
| omnipresent. If I could have a pair of glasses for my brain
| that correct for any natural deficiencies then I'd wear the
| heck out of them, appearances be damned.
| Hydraulix989 wrote:
| I'm sure the Apple Brain Implant will look "cool" and be highly
| sought after just like their other seemingly-odd gadgets did at
| the time of their inception (what is this "iPhone" thing?).
| devindotcom wrote:
| Take Musk's talk about BCIs the way you take his talk about Mars
| colonies. But my guess is we'll have the latter before the former
| is common.
|
| There will be some interesting BCI tech in the next few years but
| as the author notes, it's going to be very specific and limited,
| and probably quite expensive.
| savant_penguin wrote:
| Who cares, I've seen the pig movement prediction and found it
| really cool
|
| >> Would I invest my money in it?
|
| Hell no
|
| >> Would I have neurosurgery for no good reason?
|
| Hell no*10
|
| To me this is clearly a longshot product, but I'm very happy that
| some private citizen is willing to invest his own money into
| this. If someone stumbles on how to transform thoughts into
| movement signals or how to encode digital images into optic nerve
| signals I'm all for it
| modeless wrote:
| > I doubt we will have accurate, mind-reading consumer devices in
| the near future
|
| I'm not sure Neuralink would disagree. Their first applications
| are medical, not consumer mind-reading. They're open about their
| bigger vision being farther away.
|
| > Neuroscience is far from understanding how the mind works --
| much less having the ability to decode it.
|
| We don't necessarily have to understand everything about the
| brain to communicate with it. And we'll learn a lot in the
| process.
|
| > a neurotech device would have to add significant value for a
| consumer to get one implanted in her skull.
|
| Again, I don't think Neuralink would disagree. I guess the
| disagreement is in whether an implant could provide that
| significant value. And nobody really knows yet, of course. A lot
| depends on how well the brain can adapt to a new form of I/O.
|
| > Consumer brain-recording devices have been on the market for
| roughly 15 years
|
| Yeah but the technology is totally different and quite lame
| honestly. Existing devices have fundamental limitations that are
| not shared by an actual brain implant. Not a strong argument IMO.
|
| > Helmets and other headgear face an uphill battle to adoption
|
| The external hardware for an implant can get pretty small. Much
| less obtrusive than the given example of Google Glass.
|
| > It may be more taxing to control a device with a BCI than
| without it
|
| Pure speculation at this point.
|
| Honestly it is wise to be skeptical. But mostly I am skeptical of
| the timeline, not the eventual usefulness of the product.
| Neuralink is likely too early, but one day useful consumer brain
| implants _will_ be possible.
| dumbfoundded wrote:
| It's so far out in the future that numerous other advances may
| make the entirety of the approach useless.
|
| For example, maybe computers get so smart our need to interact
| with them diminishes and we interact with them rather
| passively.
|
| Maybe the opposite happens and we need even tighter coupling
| leading to a genetic engineering solution or a nanobot pill
| solution that crosses the blood brain barrier.
|
| The problem is everything is pure speculation at this point. I
| do hope they accomplish some of their goals but any business
| potential seems a total guess.
| [deleted]
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Man, I've spent too much time in this space... I can only sum it
| up like this -
|
| The mind is _not_ a joystick.
|
| Throughput is not the measurement of a good BCI.
|
| BCI as a term should be abolished.
|
| Someone is going to make something so seemingly simple, but
| unbelievably meaningful, to rule this space.
| offtop5 wrote:
| Hypothetically, if I can hire a PhD candidate and give him a
| million bucks to tweak the sensors for my brain specifically.
| Could he or she then make this like a joystick. Is the issue
| that there's so much variation between people.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| That's more of a profession of faith in what a 'good' BCI
| will be, than a critique of the science --
|
| There are many ways to get high fidelity 'joystick' level
| control out of a brain, especially if given one-on-one
| training.
|
| The problems for Neuralink will be the same with any implant
| - immune responses and infections - and in a sensitive area
| no less.
| offtop5 wrote:
| No way in hell I'm letting anyone stick something in my
| brain, I thought there was a wireless way to do this. In a
| very dystopian way I could imagine shopping centers
| scanning the brain waves potential customers and taloring
| ads to them
| mattkrause wrote:
| Neurosurgeons live in a very weird bubble around elective
| surgery.
|
| I was at a conference where people were debating the
| merits of non-invasive vs. invasive neural interfaces. A
| surgeon argued that people would _obviously_ never accept
| non-invasive ones...ON COSMETIC GROUNDS: EEG caps (and
| similar) look dorky.
|
| Many people do go to great pains to hide disabilities,
| but I was (and still am) really skeptical that this
| totally trumps fears around highly-invasive neurosurgery!
| georgewfraser wrote:
| I did my PhD in this field, I love that Neuralink is doing what
| they're doing, but I also agree with this article. Your hands on
| a keyboard is a _fantastic_ brain computer interface and
| represent a high bar that an implanted BCI must clear to add
| value for non-paralyzed people.
| lukeinator42 wrote:
| Even though "neuroscience is far from understanding how the mind
| works" companies like muse have already brought EEG headsets to
| market for use cases such as meditation. If neurotech focuses in
| on use cases where we can already decode useful information from
| the brain that can't be accessed by other methods, I think there
| is a huge potential market waiting to be tapped.
|
| Being skeptical about the accuracy of these
| technologies/feasibility of surgery is valid, but this article
| reads as pretty cynical rather than just skeptical, haha.
| marc__1 wrote:
| "It takes 20 years to become an overnight success." - Eddie
| Cantor
|
| SpaceX took nearly fifteen years to become the beast it is and
| Tesla took eight to increase deliveries from 2,600 to 500,000.
| Don't underestimate what these companies achieve in the long-term
| and we are always terrible to predict exponential growth (from
| pandemics, to EV, to space flights)
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/science/spacex-
| falc...
|
| [2]https://www.statista.com/chart/8547/teslas-vehicle-
| deliverie...
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Compared to rocket technology, neural tech is still not even in
| the V-2 stage though.
| dumbfoundded wrote:
| I think the difference is tackling a pre-existing market. Both
| cars and space had large existing markets to which Elon could
| speed up the rate of progress.
|
| There isn't really a market for BCI except for cases of
| disability. In this case, he has to create the customer demand
| for a technology that doesn't exist. That's a really tough sell
| when even if it did work (which is very much in doubt), would
| require a literal brain surgery. This isn't like scaling up a
| factory or using modern compute to get a rocket to land itself.
| It's fundamental research with uncertainties on perhaps every
| angle.
| aeternum wrote:
| I would seriously consider getting it depending on the
| bandwidth. Direct access to web search and an indexed storage
| system would be having a super power.
|
| Plenty of people get Lasik just to avoid the annoyance of
| contacts/glasses and eyes are technically part of the brain.
| Why wouldn't there be a market for BCI when the potential
| benefit is much greater?
| dumbfoundded wrote:
| The best answer I can give you is that we don't know it's
| too early to speculate. Maybe HCI get so good that the
| actual BCI part adds little value. Like a contact lens and
| an ear piece may accomplish just as much.
|
| Maybe machines in the future just won't need that much
| specification. Like we'll give high level goals to
| robots/computer and interaction will be much more passive.
| You'll just tell a program to do your taxes or tell a robot
| to clean the house and it'll get done.
|
| It's possible that we can accomplish most of the benefits
| of BCI without the brain surgery part. By the time this
| technology is ready, you may be able to take nano-bot pills
| once a month and to uninstall, you just stop taking them.
| Or maybe we'll genetically engineer babies to be born with
| them.
|
| It's so early that all we can do right now is speculate and
| there's a lot of reason to believe this one particular
| company won't succeed.
| platz wrote:
| Do you really randomly poking some electrodes into your
| brain tissue is going to give you enough fidelity to query
| google. That's all it is, you know. Some wires, randomly
| placed in tissue. The cells around those wires don't know
| the TCP/IP protocol or anything
| flixic wrote:
| And chips are just some metal and sand, yet we figured
| out a way to turn them into something very useful. After
| all, our brains themselves are just "some wires".
| platz wrote:
| And theres a big difference between between a completely
| controlled environment like a chip and an uncontrolled
| environment relative to engineering like a brain.
|
| I think your missing the point about what I'm
| highlighting needs to happen after the wires are inserted
| into some otherwise unsuspecting tissue that isn't
| specially adapted for this use case in any particular
| way.
| glsdfgkjsklfj wrote:
| spaceX have been getting millions on funding every year since
| being announced.
|
| just like neuralink.
|
| the huge difference is that spaceX problem was extremely easily
| to solve by throwing money (6.5B usd) at it. Neuralink, not so
| much. That's why they spend much more on marketing with
| neuralink as they did with spaceX... there's no much else to do
| with the pile.
| type0 wrote:
| > "Should we be worried that companies like Facebook, Neuralink,
| Kernel, and others -- helmed by individuals who have previously
| launched paradigm-shifting technology -- are working on capturing
| data from our brains?"
|
| Who would be dumb enough to implant something from facebook into
| their brain?!
| cblconfederate wrote:
| billions of people use the facebook's current BCI interface
| projecting from their phones to their retinas
| dadrock wrote:
| >I doubt we will have accurate, mind-reading consumer devices in
| the near future
|
| So what? Stop trying? Give up? What's the point of this
| statement? Why is the timeline you personally find realistic
| relevant to anyone else but you?
|
| I just don't get this attitude. It's such a sour grapes type of
| attitude. Either help out, or get out.
| devindotcom wrote:
| >Either help out, or get out.
|
| Leaving aside that this person was probably in this field
| before Neuralink and the others, in matters such as these,
| offering an expert opinion on a market filled with snake oil
| certainly _is_ helping out. Otherwise we rely on people whose
| first priority is not truth but profit.
|
| >So what? Stop trying? Give up?
|
| Her suggestion is to exercise skepticism and be realistic about
| what the actual applications and markets are.
| qaq wrote:
| "Leaving aside that this person was probably in this field
| before Neuralink and the others" Neuralink founding members:
| Max Hodak previously worked on the development of brain-
| computer interfaces at Duke University.
|
| Matthew MacDougall, Head of Neurosurgery at Neuralink and
| neurosurgeon at California Pacific Medical Center. He was
| previously working at Stanford where he worked in labs that
| implemented and designed brain-computer interfaces.
|
| Vanessa Tolosa, Director of Neural Interfaces. She previously
| led a neurotechnology team at the Lawrence Livermore National
| Laboratory that worked with a wide variety of technology on
| technology prostheses that were used in clinical and academic
| settings.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Speaking of Hodak, Transcriptic appears to have been
| allowed to wither on the vine.
| mattkrause wrote:
| No--but no one is saying that! Instead, we could dial back on
| the hype, put our heads down, and get to work.
|
| I work in this field and I have such strong, mixed feelings
| about companies like these. On the one hand, more interest in
| the brain and neurotech is great. These are tough problems, and
| we need new ideas, new tools, and new approaches. The standard
| academic approach of throwing a few trainees at a problem for a
| few years each (mostly in isolation), might not be the best way
| to tackle a problem that ranges from biophysics to psychology
| (and everything in between: materials science, signal
| processing, etc).
|
| On the other hand, I worry that excessive hype is going to blow
| the field up before it gets started. If Elon Musk says he can
| implant 3000 electrodes that will let you control your iPhone--
| by next year--why would anyone fund me to do the slower,
| slogging work that I think will be required to _eventually_
| make something like that possible? This isn 't just a critique
| of industry; the same brand of hucksterism shows up in parts of
| academia too. Throwing cold water on people's hopes and dreams
| isn't fun, but I think it's important for the long-term health
| of neuroscience as a field.
|
| Shorter term, companies should also think about who they're
| attracting with this hype. I'm on the job market (in a very
| low-key way), and one of my principle requirements is that I
| want to work somewhere that is serious about the science: I
| want to build something that will actually work, instead of
| burning a pile of VC cash chasing hype or, God forbid,
| Theranos. Many of my colleagues feel the same way.
| neolog wrote:
| > Why is the timeline you personally find realistic relevant to
| anyone else but you?
|
| I don't get this attitude. The author is an expert. Can't we
| learn from her?
| perardi wrote:
| _I just don 't get this attitude. It's such a sour grapes type
| of attitude. Either help out, or get out._
|
| It's called "skepticism". You read enough history, you realize
| the charlatans greatly outnumber the geniuses, and you do your
| due-diligence before you invest, or form some weird cult.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| She's not a skeptic on the value of the technology however ,
| in fact she dismisses any ethical issues it poses. She 's
| skeptical of the timeline, which is more of a business
| statement.
| tokipin wrote:
| Some skeptics remain skeptics up until the point that they've
| been proven blatantly and obviously wrong and people stop
| accepting their arguments, so for some "skeptics" at least
| it's more of a stubborn mindset backed by confirmation bias
| or other issues disconnected from the actual subject matter,
| rather than sound reasoning.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| If you read enough history, you realize that people who fail
| are forgotten, but the people who mock the people who end up
| succeeding are remembered and humiliated forever.
| phcordner wrote:
| Even discounting everything about the ethics, feasibility, state
| of our conceptual knowledge of brain function, has anyone
| demonstrated how a six-figure hardware suite like this
| https://plexon.com/plexon-systems/ is going to be miniaturized
| into a smartphone sized device mass produced for consumer
| purchase in the timetable laid out by Neuralink?
| polypodiopsidae wrote:
| I think that these aspirations for an electrosilico (pardon my
| neologisms) interface with the biological brain are a rather
| outdated nostalgia of the 20th century ninetys.(Vaporwave comes
| to mind). Intersecting just 90 sensors with the insane mass of
| neurons... it seems rather clumsy primitive tech tbh.
|
| If I was about to bet on the future I assume, that aspirations of
| hybridisation/creolisation/amalgamation of human&machine will
| happen on the biological register; that this development will go
| the other way round: from semiconductors to biotechnology. E.g.
| the brain is a fabulous architecture; damn effective and very low
| energy consumption at the same time.
|
| Wich makes me think: A substantially useful AI that can immerse
| with neurological coginition (and not just be a fancier interface
| that safes you from carrying a calculator around), will probably
| need A LOT of computational power. Damn these things can't even
| steer a hand through useful movements while im typing a way in
| language (which is its own insane technology [1]) with quite some
| musicality.
|
| What I mean is: Let's assume you could really supply the
| population with these interfaces and they really work. Who is
| going to be supplied with her/his own infrastructure of
| supercomputers running that AI that will merge with her/his
| cognition? I don't think that it would be possible to supply even
| a marginal amount of the population with access to these entitys.
| So this amounts to some dream of the (misunderstood version) of
| the Ubermensch, as a caressing of the narcissitic hurt that the
| being of tekhne inflicts to some.
|
| [1] It has been argued that language speaks. Not only do subjects
| speak language, but language also speaks subjects. (that's spoken
| through Heidegger). Thus there is something like a life of
| lanugage (it makes sense to think about if it is alife). Think of
| language as an AI.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Misleading. Neuralink has not shown something impressive ,
| however it's not comparable with consumer supposedly-EEG devices,
| but with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrainGate .
|
| Those things are still in the basic research stage, and it's been
| really hard to make them work properly. Neuralink is not even
| leading in research here, but i don't think they expect to make
| consumer grade anytime soon either. OTOH, all sorts of multiunnit
| recordings and optogenetics stimulation is possible today - if
| you're a mouse.
|
| I wonder why consumer-grade doesnt pursue the more feasible goal
| of reading from a motor nerve. I wish i could train myself typing
| by thinking of finger movements.
| nabla9 wrote:
| The biggest issue with Neuralink (for consumers) is the basic
| problem with artificial implants and their side effects.
|
| Teeth implants, knee implants they generate additional risk of
| low level inflammation in the body over time. Even generally
| unproblematic silicon breast implants that just hang there have
| scar tissue and can cause immune system reactions.
|
| Brain surgery is many times riskier. If Neuralink could create
| way to circumvent all these problems it would be huge
| breakthrough even without the BCI.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-08 23:01 UTC)