Thanks in part to Elon Musk, the field of brain-computer interfaces has captured both public and investor interest, with a cadre of companies now developing implantable devices.

The Race to Put Brain Implants in People Is Heating Up::Thanks in part to Elon Musk, the field of brain-computer interfaces has captured both public and investor interest, with a cadre of companies now developing implantable devices.

  • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    6 months ago

    I’m sorry, this version of i-plant is no longer supported. Please subscribe to a get a free replacement for your assisted eye sight, the premium option has no ads!

    • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      6 months ago

      You joke but they’re actually people running into that problem right now. A company that made bionic eyes shutdown and their users nolonger have support.

      • Buttons@programming.devEnglish
        17·
        6 months ago

        “Intellectual property” protection has gone too far. It should not be illegal to repair your own devices, it should not be illegal to reverse engineer and break encryption on your own devices. Intellectual property should be inseparable from public interest responsibilities. If you buy a movie (and have proof of such), then whoever owns the IP for the movie should be required to provide you with additional copies, and if the IP gets lost in the legal weeds, then the movie is no longer copyrighted and people can copy and distribute it freely.

        As a society, we have no interest in making your rich just because you’re a passive owner, you provide no benefit to society and society should provide no benefit to you. However, if you create a popular movie, and you distribute it and you take responsibility for ensuring that those who have purchased the movie are able to view it freely, then you are rendering a service to society and deserve to profit.

      • DrWorm@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        Wasn’t that specifically because the inventor and doctor died unexpectedly and he just didn’t write any of that stuff down or train others on how the procedure was done?

  • LainOfTheWired@lemy.lolEnglish
    45·
    6 months ago

    Yeah no. Smartphones have ruined our mental health and privacy enough I can’t even imagine what an implant would do to us.

    • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      6 months ago

      Unlikely. These implants require far less in terms of outside-the-body tech.

      Also those people were blind, which is a whole other issue because you need external feedback processing.

      Its novelty is that it doesn’t require open brain surgery. Instead, it’s implanted through a slit at the base of the neck and threaded up through the jugular vein into the motor cortex—the part of the brain that directs movement. The device is powered by a small battery pack placed under the skin of the chest. Synchron has implanted 10 patients, including six in a US feasibility trial supported by the Brain Initiative.

      Being up to “cure” paralysis is a great thing.

      • JJROKCZ@lemmy.worldEnglish
        24·
        6 months ago

        Because there is 0 chance these companies don’t force ads into our brains or require us to pay subscriptions not mentioned before the implant was put in but may harm our brain if we don’t pay. Europeans will maybe be safe from that due to consumer protection laws but we Americans are fucked.

          • SkyNTP@lemmy.mlEnglish
            15·
            6 months ago

            It always has been a policy problem. You’ve got your head in the sand if you think tech could be great if only people/corporations can just be made to be nice. Wake the f* up. People and corporations will use technology to exploit people. Not all of them, but enough of them to ruin it for everyone else.

          • m13@lemmy.worldEnglish
            7·
            6 months ago

            Do you really think policy matters when there’s a profit incentive?

            • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              6 months ago

              Yes, absolutely. Look at the current insane level of protectionism.

                • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  Do you not recall the literal trade war we were in before COVID?

                  Theres still onsistently high tariffs on imported goods, and the US government is even considering banning the sale of US steel to Nippon

      • Irishred88@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        6 months ago

        There’s plenty of reasons to be fearful or suspicious: corporations who develop all the new tech we use today have shown already they don’t respect our privacy. Our smartphones, computers, and other Internet connected devices are always harvesting data to advertise to us, so it follows that any brain-implanted device could be used to harvest data for similar purposes. Not everyone gives a shit about this one, but there are plenty who would at least like to be paid for the data that is collected from them and used for profit; barring that we should have the right to forbid data collection without consent.

        There are, of course, more sinister applications for brain-implanted devices that can interface with the Internet (and if they don’t now, they surely will in the future). I think a lot of us immediately think of the science fiction book and movie, “Minority Report” wherein law enforcement has access to the private thoughts of citizens and arrests and convicts those who have contemplated crime but have not yet perpetrated the crime. Any sane person would never allow the police access to one’s private thoughts, let alone a corporation.

        Elon Musk has said his ultimate goal with Neuralink goes beyond merely restoring function to injured parts of the body; he wants to make it possible to save and load memories and with those two functions we may also be able to delete memories too. Imagine someone hacking your memories, it could fundamentally alter your perception of yourself and your reality. You could become a prisoner in your own brain, subjected to the censorship of a corporation or government.

        These are worst case scenarios and I’m not saying we are there yet, maybe not even close to that level of technology, but we should be aware of what kind of control we may be giving away to a company or authority by allowing such implants to be installed. I hope that we will use it as a means of improving people’s lives, but I’m very cautiously optimistic as well.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          English
          3·
          6 months ago

          Yeah and I want to offer a realistic not horrifying bad scenario: features that can’t be turned off but drive you nuts. Shit like Bluetooth auto connect and auto play. Or buggy software updates. Or any number of existing things that already go wrong with assistive devices.

          I don’t think brain implants are universally nightmarish. But if they’re starting with people like Elon musk and grand ideas of transhumanism it’s gonna go bad. If it starts with assistive devices and evolves naturally from there I think there’s a chance it goes ok. But even then there are people today with cochlear implants of wildly different quality because they advanced so much between being able to afford the first one and being able to afford the second one.

        • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          I think a lot of us immediately think of the science fiction book and movie, “Minority Report” wherein law enforcement has access to the private thoughts of citizens and arrests and convicts those who have contemplated crime but have not yet perpetrated the crime.

          This is a matter of public policy, not tech. As are your privacy concerns.

          • Irishred88@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            6 months ago

            That’s true, but I’m also cynical. Policy makers only have to serve up a phantom to instill fear into the general public and then they can drum up support for policies that appear to serve the public interest; for the sake of “protecting” the public.

            • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              6 months ago

              Like data privacy concerns?

              See the problem there? We disagree on what to be afraid of.

              • Irishred88@lemmy.worldEnglish
                6·
                6 months ago

                I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on that one. If you aren’t concerned about the information that others collect on you and you don’t care to imagine how it could be used against you then I’ll stop there

                • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  6 months ago

                  Agreed. That’s my point.

                  People really are afraid of things, or not afraid of things, all across a spectrum, and people rarely agree on everything that is serious.

                  Policy shouldn’t be shaped by fear.

      • hagelslager@feddit.nlEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

        While the idea is awesome, I’m certain that greedy corporations or other bad actors will abuse this.

        • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          I’m sure at some point in the future someone will do bad things with every piece of technology, as they have with every piece of technology so far.

          That’s no reason to be upset about advances in new technology

          • Fades@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            6 months ago

            They aren’t upset about technological advancement, they’re upset at the utter lack of consumer protection.

            It’s been bad for a long time:

            https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete

            And nothing has changed that. But go ahead don’t let me stop you from begging to be a beta tester.

            Worked out so far right? https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-pcrm-neuralink-monkey-deaths/

            Im sure Elon will totally not rat fuck you like he has done to every Tesla owner (bad build quality, false advertising for things like full self driving, etc)

            It’s wild you are so desperate to defend these out of control capitalists wanting to do literal human experimentation. The corporations don’t give a fuck about you, you’re expendable.

            • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              6 months ago

              It’s wild you are so desperate to defend these out of control capitalists wanting to do literal human experimentation.

              This is not a remotely accurate reading of either my comments or this article

      • formergijoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

        Tired of ads in your dreams? For the low price of $15.99 a month you could get ad-free dreams with Brain+!

  • dmalteseknight@programming.devEnglish
    19·
    6 months ago

    People seem to think it is a one time thing. But are you going to have invasive brain surgery every time you need a major upgrade because your current implants are no longer being supported?

  • Holyginz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    6 months ago

    I’m not getting anything put in my brain or otherwise until we get away from the current mindset of disposable electronics. Also not until I know its not going to be used to funnel ads into my brain.

  • sorghum@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    6 months ago

    Just a matter of time before we get Ghost in the Shell style cybernetics replacing parts of our brains

  • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.ukEnglish
    1·
    6 months ago

    These companies are more interested in the prestige of getting there first, and securing venture capital than the actual applications, implants, and patients.