Technology

59412 readers

3322 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

180

Neuralink to implant 2nd human with brain chip as 85% of threads retract in 1st (arstechnica.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 132 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (15 children)

"asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined"

Evidence whether the company saw them as a person, or felt any ethical obligation...

It's an interesting era when an organization can have a single user, and choose to leave that single user with 85% of the promised functionality no longer functional. But is happily pursuing it's second user.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 6 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

This was a known problem that they didn't fix on the animal models before moving to human trials. They learned nothing. All they did was scrap someone's brain. But I'm sure it's no big deal, he was a cripple right, he should be happy to be part of this /s

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)