this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
383 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
59653 readers
2807 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's 100% about Musk, yes, given his pursuit of tech even if it comes at a human cost. It's a pattern of his specific companies.
What this situation demonstrates is that Musk is pushing the tech ahead before it's ready and that the person recieving the implant is simply lucky that that negligence and haste hasn't left them with brain damage or worse.
No one is saying medical devices shouldn't be developed to help people, I'm saying Musks tech-cult attitude of "move fast and break stuff" should not apply when human lives and well being are involved.
Nobody is making you get a brain chip. Noland did the research, talked about it with his family, and wanted to proceed in spite of the fully disclosed risks. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right - if you want to do something or have something done to your body it's not the governments place to stop you. Safeguards are necessary, and they do exist. You don't need laws to make sure everybody has the same risk tolerance as you. I can't fully imagine what it would be like to have no use of my body and no hope of recovery. But I wouldn't want people like you or me who aren't in my shoes deciding what I can and can't do. Honestly if he wanted to have a lethal injection, I believe he should be allowed to make that decision, but he can't. I'm happy he was able to make some kind of decision, and regain some autonomy, if only temporarily, and not just be a vegetable head in a bed for the rest of his life.
Again, the person's desperation is a key here, this technology is targeted at people who are potentially willing to try anything even if it comes with risk.
That isn't the same sort of consent I have as someone who isn't paralyzed and just think it'd be cool to control my garage door with my brain or something. I'm not under the same pressure.
If I mix a bunch of laundry chemicals and bill it as a miracle cure for cancer, and then target vulnerable people willing to try anything because they are stage 4, that doesn't excuse me of my reckless disregard for safety or to use those people as experiments.
Musk's company wants to get this tech into human beings as quickly as possible even if it's underdeveloped and potentially unsafe because Musk's priority is not really about helping people.
Are you suggesting that the FDA gave Neuralink special treatment in the approval process? Or are you suggesting that the government should specifically shut down anything Musk tries to do, like SpaceX?
That or Musk's org lied, misrepresented their progress or found loop holes in the regulation process, yes.
It's pretty obvious from its immediate failure that it was not ready.
I don’t think it’s obvious at all. This is a sample size of one, and it is still working after 3 months.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7388795/
Implants are rejected by the immune system. Stents fail. Hip and joint replacements fail. Does that mean we shouldn’t do them?