Elon Musk's brain-computer interface outfit Neuralink tests its tech on a human Elon Musk's brain-computer interface implant company Neuralink has begun its first human clinical trial. “The first human received an implant from Neuralink yesterday and is recovering well. Initial results show promising neuron spike detection," announced Musk in a tweet on Monday, amplified by Neuralink. Details of the …
Or maybe the idea is to stick a real brain in a Tesla?
Please tell me he's not taking inspiration from "The ship who sang" (Anne McCaffery)..
Probably not. Elon will admit that nothing has primacy over is own drug-addled thoughts and abhors the idea of giving credit to anyone else for one of "his" ideas.
Ministry of WrongthinkYour last brain download was a month ago, therefore you have been issued a fine of -1000 social credit score.
Please charge your neurolink and send a brain download immediately.
The technology to make user charge it before it goes down was not there yet.
Though the world were politicians can play real life Sims is closer than we (autonomously) think.
"It is a wide notion that men think of sex too often. A new study busts that myth. The research in college-age participants suggests that while men do think about sex more often than women, the subject crosses their mind an average of only about 19 times per day, compared to 10 times per day for women."
Hmmm, that's still pretty often to have the barriers slammed down on your thoughts ;-)
It's good to remember that stakes are very high in biomedical R&D (including bioengineering), and convincing salespersonship rarely equates to successful products and treatments (eg. Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos). Even the apparently more sedated research scientists in the field do seem to occasionally stray from proper scientific procedures and ethics.
IMHO, it is important to not give potential research subjects (eg. for a Neuralink BCI) wild false hopes of fantastic post-implant abilities, and also to address concerns raised by serious professionals in this area.
Generally, not long if you read some of the reports groups got out of the UC system before they severed tied with Neuralink. It was just one research animal after another that they had to kill because of a massive infection. It makes you wonder what the lab conditions are like, because it certainly conjures up images of some like 19th Century battlefield hospital when amputation was all the rage and they didn't bother cleaning off the blood from the last person before sawing into your leg. People in the 19th century had the excuse of ignorance to germ theory, anyone working at Xitler's Neuralink... not so much.
Given that we don't know exactly what software they were using or what actions the monkeys' brains were activating, and that this is a person whose companies have been accused by employees of faking sales videos before, I would take that particular demonstration as perhaps not indicative of the product you get.
This is scary technology and has been part of science fiction for decades yet is also the holy grail of human-computer interface design.
Instead of pointlessly criticising Musk because his name is Musk (which I admit is the base line here) why not critique the potential of the technology - all the way from utterly life changing for a paraplegic or someone with MND up to scary when it becomes a cosmetic system so that Taylor Swift can interface with her flock of pet hamsters ...
If it doesn't work it's just another experiment that's failed but if it works it will be a step on the way to the biggest "advance" in computing since the on button was invented.
Neuralink are not the first to try this, there has been a few previous experiments. A bit more fuss being made because Musk is involved in backing the work.
I couldn’t sit here in selfish rude health and deny opportunities for people who are not because of where the technology could potentially be abused.
> is also the holy grail of human-computer interface design.
I don't know what you think the neuralink chip actually does, but it really isn't.
This thing does exactly one thing, and one thing only...if it works, that is: Control a prosthesis.
That's it. Move some step motors etc. in a prosthetic limb. No telepathy. No music player. No communicating with a computer. No downloading information. No in-brain virtual reality. Not even chat.
So no, this is not "the holy grail" of anything. If it works, it's just a novel way of doing something, that is already possible, because prosthetics attached to remaining motoric nerves already exist.
"So no, this is not "the holy grail" of anything. If it works, it's just a novel way of doing something, that is already possible, because prosthetics attached to remaining motoric nerves already exist."
I don't think you have *any* idea how significant being able to move an electronic pointer on a screen or move a single physical digit via a brain implant could be to some people ... (which has been attempted in the past but never with long term success). This is not about controlling a prosthetic so you can "fist pump" someone by tapping off existing motoric nerves (your Wiki reference), this is about the fundamental ability to communicate with the outside world or exhibit any physical control at a very basic level.
Their argument was not whether the technology could be significant to someone, but whether it is "the holy grail of human-computer interface design". There are a lot of technologies that are very useful to some people which mean little to others. Acknowledging the lack of general utility does not diminish its transformative effect on those who do require it.
Their argument was not whether the technology could be significant to someone, but whether it is "the holy grail of human-computer interface design".
Like much Musk, it's also nothing new. I was working on doing this in 1992, but had a lot less money as a student. Admittedly it was a simpler approach, ie driving a prosthetic from surviving nerves rather that going directly for the brain. Mainly because that was complicated enough, and a whole lot less complicated to get the paperwork than for brain surgery.
Right I agree with you. But if you have a damaged mind that can't control vital functions - could this possibly be able to help?
Forget Elon: his hype, dates and functional claims have an unfortunate history. But listen to independent practitioners who may be in a better position than you or I to judge whether this is just vapourware or a potential lifechanger. Success despite Elon is a possibility.
I seem to remember my old professor Warrick at Reading experimenting with this years ago. I'll have to have a Google and see what came of it. ISTR that he planted an interface in his brain so this might not be the first as claimed by Mr X.
He had an RFID chip (or similar) stuck in his arm IIRC. He'd have never got permission from the ethics committee to do a brain implant, not even in his own. He just bullshitted a lot.
More likely akin to William Kellogg's elder brother John who had some decidedly peculiar ideas.
Still the Musk empire is resembling Cybus Industries more every day except John Lumic was reasonably sane by comparision. Actually its a toss up whether its Cybus Industries or the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation of a ghastly chimera of both.
Right now, if this works as hoped it can be a boon for many disabled people.
However, as the technology matures it could be so much more than that. It could lead to a direct neural interface that would let us have images and sounds going directly into our brains. Not only would that be a tremendous advance in helping the blind and deaf but it could lead to something that is pretty much indistinguishable from actual telepathy.
I could also see fighter pilots and the pilots of Musk's Mars ships connected directly into their crafts, no joy sticks, screens or any of that, direct input and control.
Never mind the opportunities for entertainment... a system that could have you see, hear, and feel whatever was programed has some fascinating potential...and could be used for some genuine evil.
"I could also see fighter pilots and the pilots of Musk's Mars ships connected directly into their crafts, no joy sticks, screens or any of that, direct input and control."
No brain interface will change the fact that the #1 impediment for fighter pilots and astronauts is the severe frailness of the human body. Which is why pilots will long have been replaced by machines before any brain interface capable of doing what you propose becomes available.
Duncan Sandys, the UK Defence Minister in 1957 presented a white paper suggesting that manned aircraft were obsolete.
67 Years later BAe System Tempest is being developed with a nice seat for the driver and brain signal interface in the helmet.
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/uk-fighter-mind-reading-helmet
> I could also see fighter pilots and the pilots of Musk's Mars ships connected directly into their crafts[1], no joy sticks, screens or any of that, direct input and control.
No screens?
No *screens*?!
You want this thing to pump data back *into* the pilot's mind? Forget Firefox, worry about Firewall Down!
Yikes[3]
[1] their craft! The plural of "aircraft" is : "aircraft"! Unless you were thinking they would learn macrame and the carving of scrimshaw[2] whilst the craft's FSD flew them (in)to Mars?
[2] perhaps a scene of a privateer with four or five cannon along the port side.
[3] at this point, trying to list all the synonyms for disbelief suitable as a response to this, my cortically implanted thesaurus overheated and shut down and just emitted a single "yikes" before emailing to schedule a service.
There's probably potentially more money to be made in fundamental patents related to the placement and biochemical control of the interface ( i.e. control of the reaction of immune systems) than any functionality in the medium term.
Advanced function is probably way down the list at the moment.
There's a real-life parallel that is used for patients with intractable epilepsy, at least in the sense that it uses electrodes implanted in the brain to record activity. In this case, the implanted device detects the onset of seizure activity and applies electrical pulses to prevent the seizure. In the long run, this may reduce the need for epilepsy surgery in which the part of the brain from which seizures originate is removed. This device is somewhat less invasive than surgery, and has the advantage that it could be removed (the changes from surgery are most certainly permanent).
https://www.neuropace.com/patients/neuropace-rns-system/#how-it-works
Other devices include deep brain stimulators, which stimulate but don't record electrical activity. They're on all the time, though they can be controlled externally to change the stimulus parameters (frequency, amplitude) or turn them off if necessary. They're used mainly for Parkinson disease and dystonia.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/deep-brain-stimulation
Considering the number of research animals they had to kill because of massive infections, I wouldn't let Xitler's butchers anywhere near my brain. I'd be hesitant to volunteer for some kind of non-invasive cap that could potentially pick up on some of the signals that "leak" out of your skull. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the idea in general, just done by a group that is responsible about how they go about things and understands that science is a process of small incremental advancements, not giant leaps made all at once.*
* Though every now and then scientists will luck into something that advances the line of research considerably.
Is Elon Musk's brain-computer interface outfit, Neuralink, truly going to improve the lives of people with disabilities? I am concerned that it is a pretext to exploit the power of technology to gain intrusive access to a human's thoughts. While the concept of using technology to assist individuals with disabilities is commendable, wouldn't it be more beneficial to direct resources towards research into regenerating cells in the human body to reverse cell damage or finding cures to reverse disabling conditions? Is there a possibility that if it works for people with disabilities to control a computer or cell phone with their thoughts, the reverse could also occur? Additionally, what about law enforcement's thirst for new gadgets to maintain law and order? Could this technology be used to extract a police statement by merely accessing a suspect's mind?
This raises significant ethical and privacy concerns. While advancements in technology have the potential to greatly benefit society, we must carefully consider the implications and ensure that safeguards are in place to protect individuals' rights and autonomy.
> wouldn't it be more beneficial to direct resources towards research into regenerating cells in the human body to reverse cell damage or finding cures to reverse disabling conditions?
Pretty sure Big Pharma just had an ecoptic heartbeat at the thought of research into finding cures. - There's no money in cures, treatments however....
Can't have anything amazing that will affect profits or destablize the greed cycle.
Pretty sure, if it works, no one will get one beyond Musk himself as the cost will be made massive.
I guess if you downvote, you must be one of those 'Muskolytes' who pander to his every breath.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
