Comment on Neuralink to implant 2nd human with brain chip as 85% of threads retract in 1st

MajorHavoc@programming.dev ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• deegeese@sopuli.xyz ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s not a patient to help, it’s an early prototype to be abandoned.

  source

  • Sludgehammer@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Move fast and break people.

    source
• golli@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  with 85% of the promised functionality no longer functional

  To be fair 85% of threads retracting doesn’t seem to translate to an equal amount of functional loss. The article mentions

  Neuralink was quick to note that it was able to adjust the algorithm used for decoding those neuronal signals to compensate for the lost electrode data. The adjustments were effective enough to regain and then exceed performance on at least one metric—the bits-per-second (BPS) rate used to measure how quickly and accurately a patient with an implant can control a computer cursor.

  I think it will be impossible for us to asses how much it actually impacts function in real world use case.

  It seems clear that this is a case of learning by trial and error, which considering the stakes doesn’t seem like the right approach.

  The question that this article doesn’t answer is, whether they have learned anything at all or if they are just proceeding to do the same thing again. And if they have learned something, is there something preventing it to be applied to the first patient.

  source

  • MajorHavoc@programming.dev ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    if they have learned something, is there something preventing it to be applied to the first patient.

    That’s part of what makes me see this as a really bad look.

    “Install it deeper” isn’t rocket science, and it sounds like their first volunteer is willing.

    They just want the extra data from leaving their first volunteer where they landed.

    Human subject experiments are supposed to carry more long term obligation than this.

    source
  • CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think it will be impossible for us to asses how much it actually impacts function in real world use case.

    Does seem fair though to say though that if you have 85% less input probes, that you’re losing some to a large amount of fidelity, than an algorithm can only make up so much for. At the end of the day, it’s a lack of data that was originally expected for the algorithm to work with.

    A potentionally bad analogy, but think of it as a high bitrate versus a low bitrate, for listening to music. The quality of the music will be notably different, but you would still be able to hear both of the songs in their entirety.

    ~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

    source
  • lorkano@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    For sure they learned something, they must have some ideas why those retracted. Also they confirmed viability of technology by doing tests before those retracted

    source
• Kraiden@kbin.run ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I prefer flipping that number on it's head. 15%. They delivered 15% of what they promised and are now saying "fuck it."

  It's the equivalent of writing your name on the exam, and then sitting there doodling for the rest of the time.

  source
• lorkano@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  While it sounds a like a dick move, there probably was a reason they would prefer other patients. Maybe it’s more risky to do surgery second time? I don’t really blame them for this one, their goal is to take best steps to develop technology before they make it widespread and really functional. I blame them for all of those animals death though.

  source

  • MajorHavoc@programming.dev ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Yeah. I also can think of lots of reasonable reasons, but if those were the real reasons, the company should still be making commitments and plans with their first user…

    The healthy stuff sounds like: “We intend X follow up procedure, but it needs to follow Y precaution.”

    Hell, even companies that have no intention to help usually take the time to lie and claim that they do.

    source
  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    there probably was a reason they would prefer other patients.

    yeah, they fucked up on this one and want a new test subject.

    source