/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11991904
Hype "technology" for soiboys

>>11991904
Quite promising so far. There will be an official update on the 28th of August.

>>11991915
>>11991926
The Duality of /sci/

sounds great, but i dont like the idea of getting my skull drilled to get it installed

>>11991904
I don't know what it is.

>>11991930
If you don't do it to yourself then the government or some other tech company will. Legal system is not moving fast enough

I am optimistic on it. But the weakest link is scarring it's possible the procedure minimizes it. But I think you'd probably not want to remove it due to the possible damage. On the technical end of the stick nobody knows or wants to speculate on what the development can/will/could do.

>>11991934
Full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vbh3t7WVI
CNET cutdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA77zsJ31nA

>>11991904
>trusting elon muskeinberg to put chips in your brain

Yeah nah, get fucked.

>>11991956
Can't wait to dab on luddites like this with my 5000 IQ

How much longer until we can increase short term memory capacity from ~7 to ~100,000 at will?

How would it not get hacked? The best thing I could think of would be some blockchain identity system based around neural patterns the brain might create but really Im just saying buzzwords and have no idea

>>11991904
If you are stupid enough to get this, you deserve everything that happens to you.

Lots of hype from Elon but the real achievements will be from spinoff technology, like controlling mechanical limbs and restoring hearing and vision

>>11992079
You have smartphone with you. Use the sticky notes.

>>11992167
Closed System

I can't wait to be a cat girl battle cyborg on Mars.

>>11991930

It's an incredibly small hole.

>>11991944
>I th-th-think this will be.... we have to umm lo-look at ment-.. brain-related umm diseases like de-dementia umm and alzheimers
>w-we're going to insert umm a chip... one day it will umm be a br-brain... full brain lace... slowly, it will be sl-slow though.. it will sy-symbiosis with umm AI
>we c-can't takeover your wh-whole umm brain yet.... haha
Jesus christ he is so hard to listen to. How did this guy become a billionaire

>>11992243
Autism

>>11991904
If something bad happens, it's going to be the least fun you ever had.

>>11992294
It's very fucking hard to hear him talk. I would prefer it if he used some text to speech program on all his presentations.

>>11992167
That's actually not infeasible. Research into "passthought" authentication systems using non-invasive EEG has been growing recently, with the defense department showing keen interest. With invasive EEG like neuralink, it should be fairly easy to authenticate a user with already existing technology.

>>11992243
>Closed System
Yea, right. Very doubtful about that... There is always some exploit.

>>11992294
>>we c-can't takeover your wh-whole umm brain yet.... haha
This he say this shit? How are you still defending this piece of shit?

>>11991904
Have they proven it's actually possible to "write" to the brain in the way Neuralink claims? Transcranial EEG isn't anything new, but being able to rewire a person's brain on the fly would be a game changer

>>11991904
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/neural-augs-are-hard/

Looks interesting, but I would make sure it has been thoroughly tested before I got it. This sort of thing could be a god-send to various kinds of cripples; imagine quadriplegics getting even something as basic as keyboard & mouse controls and how much that would improve their life. And then move on to robot limbs and such.

>>11991962
>he thinks what he’ll get with a Neuralink(TM) implant is a higher IQ
oh no no no no no

>>11992353
He said it in the video as an attempt at a joke. Not a single person laughed except himself

>>11992441
was it autism

You mean TRANSpill me

>>11992294
>>11992353
He's not a politician or a trial lawyer. He doesn't need to be a good speaker. There are many kinds of intelligence, and he has some of them in spades. The fact that he's not very impressive with respect to the kinds of intelligence that people use for effective oral communication says nothing about the rest of his intellectual abilities.

>>11992294
Lmao, low IQ detected. If you can't get past a REAL person actually thinking as they speak, then you're the retard.

>>11992612
What kind of intelligence does he have in spades? Certainly not the kind that comes from technical knowledge. He was right time/right place with PayPal, and since has been little more than a geek-charismatic whose biggest credit would have to be being unafraid to be ambitious with his endeavors.

>>11992643
>Certainly not the kind that comes from technical knowledge
lol

>>11992645
What kind of technical prowess does he have? Genuinely curious. Does he design the Tesla electric engines or something? I heard him try to explain machine learning on joe Rogan and he clearly didn’t have a clue what he was talking about.

>>11991915
FPBP

>>11992656
Are you a retard? People can talk in different levels of technical language depending on the audience. Joe Rogan is not an engineer. His audience is not engineers. Why the fuck would Elon give engineering lectures to Joe Rogan and his audience? You do that to people who know what theyre talking about. He's a fucking rocket engineer, not just on paper, but in actual engineering. Its been confirmed by other rocket engineers that have worked on rockets. Its been confirmed by amateur rocket engineers. Its been confirmed by other rocket company engineers. He's been working @ spacex for nearly 20 years.

Nevermind the first question. You're a fucking retard.

>>11992676
You didn’t answer my question. You seem very dumb and quick to anger. Also I’m guessing you idolize Musk.

>>11992612
>>11992638
>>11992676
Hope he reads these bro

>>11991904
>unairgaping your brain

>>11992676
Elon never worked as an engineer nobody wanted to hire a brainlet

>>11992656
All his scientists/engineers built and designed the tesla engine, Elon is simply the poster child.

>>11992294
stealing ideas from actual smart people and paying jewish lawyers to protect him

>>11991962
5000 IQ but have to deal with constant ads

>>11992241
that doesnt function for short term memory, if you have 100000 notes but 7 things in your brain, you cant parse those notes to make new deductions

>>11991904
Musk wants those epic meme ideas

>>11992612
This and weed

>>11991904
It's a scam, like pretty much everything Musk does.

>>11991904
Anyone with a decent grasp of the literature knows that Neuralink promises the world but has not delivered on anything that actually advances the field. I'd be happy if I'm shown wrong, but so far their output is distinctly underwhelming.

For example, their device:
- contains a single channel per thread (1 is not enough for stable single-neuron resolution since you can't triangulate activity; probes that are widely used today already contain ~300 channels).
- performs pre-amplification not at the probe level (again, the standard) but at the chip level where multiple probes are combined (meaning any measurements will have very low SNR)
- contains thin threads which is good to minimize bleeding but also precludes sub-cortical implantation, which is at odds with the stated goal of developing treatment plans in humans (literally all DBS treatments target sub-cortical areas and as such require rigid probes that can reach the appropriate depth).

>>11991926
>There will be an official update on the 28th of August.
I'm not sure if you've read the responses to this announcement from neuroscientists, but this will be a joke. They're planning to show "neurons firing", which we were able to do literally 80 years ago (pic related).

>>11993033
God damn commitment. He actually launched people into space. Just to fool us into think he could launch people into space.

Could be amazing in a normal society. Instead Google will be scraping your brain for metadata and injecting you with adverts, governments will be immediately able to identify wrong thinking dissenters, hackers getting access and directly stimulating the experience of being flayed alive until the battery dies . I generally really like most of what Elon does but this is hell tier Pandora box stuff.

>>11991904
some very smart neuroscientists are working on Neuralink and it seems to be promising for treating paralysis and diseases

beaming images into brain is much more skeptical, tough

>>11993133
>very smart neuroscientists
lol, name 3

>>11991930
>i dont like the idea of getting my skull drilled to get it installed
That is what they all say.

>>11991956
Yet millions of Apploids would queue up when Apple offers the same thing.

>>11992309
You can always break his spine with a baseball bat so that he ends up like hawkings

70's tech, deemed not realisable back then, that he now somehow feels is the time for

>>11991962
>standard deviation
What's that?

Do you have any idea how IQ works?

>>11993038
Interesting this looks almost exactly like an ECG of the heart.

>>11993493
yup, but note that the timescale at which these two signals evolve is quite different. A neural spike is somewhere in the order of a millisecond, but a QRS complex can take up to a hundred times as long.

when will i be able to buy it?

>>11992243
If it, in any way interacts with the world it's not closed. And if it is "closed" it would be pretty useless, since its bandwith would be limited to your senses

it allows you to move a cursor on a screen with your brain, might kill you during surgery, might cause brain damage and it will stop working after a few years because brain tissue around the spikes will die.
brain-machine symbiosis is a load of bullshit. the brain's electric signals are very faint and they brain also uses other forms of signaling to work and the immune system is notorious for not liking foreign objects. also the brain isn't digital and it doesn't operate like a computer logic which means you will need to spend a shit ton of time to find what those signals mean

>>11993493
the QRS complex is essentially the same thing but on a larger scale of depolarization/repolarization

>>11993531
Source for all that nonsense?

>>11992656
FUCKING FACTS. He's literally on the record saying that our brains use backpropagation. Anyone who's seen the 3b1b video on neural networks knows more than him.

He literally just employs really talented people and stands on their acheivements. Also, how are we gonna go to Mars, the radiation in the trip over will literally fry us

>>11993546
damn he really is the new Steve Jobs

Elon is retarded and doesn't have anything to show for it. Only people excited about his tech are reddit fags who haven't read the literature on brain/machine interfaces.

The brain is probably the most complex network that we know of in the universe and we'll probably never truly understand it's inner workings.

At very best, neural link will fix simple mental conditions like restore vision and hearing or other simple disabilities. Probably still at least 3-5 years away tho. It'll probably maim or kill the first couple human test subjects.

>>11993545
Anyone who has any knowledge in the field knows that stuff.
None of it is nonsense.

>>11993531
invasive brain surgery being bad, scar tissue, the brain not being binary or digital, the brain's signal being very weak, the brain using chemicals for signals is basic common knowledge. btw i haven't even mentioned the complexity of the brain which in itself is a very huge obstacle against "brain-machine symbiosis"

>>11993439
This just like how re landing his shitty SpaceX rockets was also 70's tech
But morons listen to everything he says like hes some god

>>11991904

>Pajeet tier code literally running in your brains
>Additional expenses for maintenance
>Government now can police your literal thoughts and send you to jail for thought crimes
>Femipigs, sjws, and other extremist political third parties can now cancel you based on your thoughts.
>There will be even more trash on the internet now that people can upload a video or shitpost just with a fucking thought

Ideally a tech like this would be wonderful, but human stupidity, moral policing and other ways of fuckery will most likely ruin it

>>11993685
who says neuralink has to record and store data, or has to signal it over the internet? it could be a solely internal program that deletes its ram every so often, or doesnt have any way to be extracted other than opening up your brain

>>11991956
Nah, Elon has standards.
I do like actually keeping my soul though, so fuck neuralink.

>>11993666
If it's 70's tech, then why has no one done that even once before SpaceX, let alone so repeatedly.

>>11993696
the small-hatted one doth protest too much, methinks

>>11993694
If used merely as medical device or "prosthetic" then sure, could be nice. However imagine than one of the drivers of your neuralink needs updating because a bug or something, ideally your device would need some sort of connection to the external world so you don't have to get your head drilled again, even if it's just an "data cable" kind of connection. This is of course is just conjecture, but gradually neutral interfaces would include internet connection for convenience and with it would come a lot of political BS to make us "safer".

>>11991904
If you get two you can talk to each other

>>11991915
If it actually works, it would be very powerful technology since it would effectively enable synthetic telepathy. Imagine a neuralink "microphone" that you don't have to talk into to "talk into" hooked up to a radio, with sound output through low-profile earbuds. You could have teams of people communicating with each other completely silently. You wouldn't know they were doing it even if you were in the room with them.

The applications for such technology are virtually boundless.

>>11993904
>The applications for such technology are virtually boundless.
unfortunately they're also a complete fantasy

>>11992436
No, but it could give you a "telepathic" link to an "AI voice assistant" that, from the outside, would result in a situation where you appear to have encyclopedic knowledge.

>somebody asks you what the weather in Topeka is like
>in your head, you think the words "Hey alexa, what's the weather in topeka"
>in your earbuds, alexa reads you the answer
>you echo the answer back to whoever asked the question, a few seconds after it was asked

>>11993912
Not really. Neuralink might not work, but subvocal recognition is almost good enough and probably will probably get there in a few years. One way or the other, this sort of synthetic telepathy is coming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocal_recognition

>>11993917
>Neuralink might not work
but that's exactly it anon, 'mind reading' is a very far cry from reading EMG signals from the throat, they'd have to rely on vastly different technologies, which is why I called it a fantasy

it does not exist, and musk won't be the one to develop it either

>>11993922
It's not a matter of mere mind reading. Actually, I HOPE it isn't. Ideally this sort of technology would only work when the subject is deliberately making it work. Ideally it would not start automatically working if you installed it on an unwilling subject. If the tech works on unwilling uncooperative subjects, it should be buried and the researchers pursuing it shot and buried in unmarked graves. That would be profoundly dangerous technology. Just think what the CIA, FSB, Mossad, etc could do with it.

>>11993927
>Ideally this sort of technology would only work when the subject is deliberately making it work.
The exact same holds and it seems you've missed the point: it is a far cry from reading EMG of the throat. It would require neural decoding.

>>11993951
I see no reason to think that should be theoretically infeasible.

>>11993958
I'm not saying it's theoretically impossible, I'm saying it's practically implausible on the near to mid term. As in, not within musk's lifetime. I say this because I personally work in the field of neural encoding.

>>11993980
Well I'm not saying Neuralink specifically will succeed. But I do think that synthetic telepathy, one way or the other, could arrive in consumer products in the next 20 or so years.

>>11991904
no matter what im not having it

>>11993984
>in consumer products in the next 20 or so years.
Like I said, this is a fantasy. Enjoy the thread, I'm out.

>>11994014
Subvocal recognition isn't quite there yet, but it's close and there are a lot of people throwing plenty of money at it. To say that it's a fantasy isn't very charitable. It hasn't yet been realized but it's pretty likely to happen.

I googled this and Musk is saying it will allow you to stream music directly to the brain.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-computer-chip-music-stream-a9627686.html

Uh, those sorts of EMFs would seriously fuck up the brain no? I know we've been getting dumber lately but this just looks like trolling.

>>11992287
For you

>>11993715
Because it's pointless. It's literally cheaper to build a disposable rocket then it is to spend all your money trying to re land it

>>11993038
This

>>11991915
>>11991926
>>11991928
it's really both. It's very promising, there has not been much progress in neural interface hardware, the old utah array was designed in the 80s, finally manufactured in the 90s, and didn't really change much in the 00s and 10s. There is potential for neural interfaces to make all sorts of cyberpunk wet dreams come true. BUT, there is little to no chance of the general public getting one in less than 10 years. Convincing the FDA to let you do cosmetic brain surgery will be pretty hard. Even with all the tech they have brain surgery is still risky, so unless you are a paraplegic the risk is probably not acceptable. I honestly completely expect some soiboys to cripple themselves just so they become eligible to get one and it not going well. The talk about the implant being able to play music in your head may be possible, but may end up being extremely difficult to do. So yes, there is a lot of baseless hype going on about it.

>>11994803
ok China

>>11994803
>there has not been much progress in neural interface
>hurrr durrr what are neuropixel probes

>>11993038
>that Neuralink promises the world but has not delivered on anything that actually advances the field
It's straight out of Musk's playbook, sometimes he pulls a rabbit out of his ass, sometimes not.
At the end of the day it's a positive because he's channeling money to smart people doing research which IMO is better than having them work on photo sharing apps.

>Musk jumps on future tech
>memes to media about it
>soiboys eat up omg he's a irl Tony Stark!
>attracts billions of investment dollars
>???

>>11992451

yeah, me too. Now I want to change gender and be a woman. Too bad about my huge bulky frame and chisled masculine features

>>11994824
it will probably be mandatory there first. I can see this scene playing out: >>11993149

>>11993904
What is stopping them from mindraping you?

>>11995375
>Implying I wouldn't want to get mindraped by daddy Elon

>>11991904
Brain Computer Interfaces are not a meme, but neuralink is. The science is just not there yet. Neural prosthetics are real though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoKcRtDmKJw

>>11995390
>The science is just not there yet.
So because its not there, we should never pursue research?

>>11995375
see >>11993927

>>11993951
They ARE doing neural decoding, they actually found some pretty nifty things about how the brain works.

>>11995524
Who's "they"? I know decoding is being worked on because that's what I do too, but 1) but neuralink isn't, and 2) the kind of decoding required for a device the other anon was talking about has nothing to do with the type of decoding we can do today.

Elon obviously plays Ad Mech.

>>11991904
Private corporation want direct access to your brain so they can sell your personal data or control what you want.
Because Offer and Demand is for loser who can't control offer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

What do you mean it doesn't work? It already works. Tested on monkeys. Is /sci/ boomer central or why are you so narrow-minded?
This is fucking embarrassing and sounds like most of you are naysayers just because you don't like him.

>>11996321
>scientists can do it
>neuralink has done it
these are worlds apart anon

>>11996373
Errr, no? Those scientists work at NeuraLink.

>>11996565
Name 3 neuroscientists who work at neuralink. If you can do that with source, I'll concede the argument.

The whole place is nothing but engineers.

>>11991904
Neuralink is not going to work for anything except for stuff like spinal cord injuries where the neuralink will bypass the spinal cord and allow the motor cortex to directly control muscles.

>>11996615
It's on their fucking website, jesus christ. A neurosurgeon works there.

>>11996615
>changing the goalpost
I easily found a reddit thread with the old staff, together with their degrees and Almae Mater.
It was NeuraLink doing the monkey experiment.
Can't post the link because spam detection...
>the company had got a monkey to „control a computer with its brain.“

>>11996642
>pointing out a glorified technician when Anon asked about scientists
I'm on your side Anon but that was a terrible example.

>>11996685
Kek, I know the experiment, you're referring to the 2008 Nature paper* by Velliste et al. I know neuroscientists have been able to demonstrate things like this for a long time - I personally am one. My claim is that these advances have nothing to do with neuralink, the company, which has demonstrated nothing of the sort. This particular experiment was conducted before neuralink even existed.

*https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06996

>>11996642
>neurosurgery and neuroscience are the same thing
They're not. But even if I give you this one, you'd owe me 2 more. You can't even give me one name besides a vague description.
>It's on their fucking website, jesus christ.
That'd be news to me, since all it contains is a link to a youtube video of the launch, the biorxiv preprint, and job openings for engineering positions. No names, no info, no nothing. Post a screenshot if I'm missing anything.

>>11996694
Great, I'm perfectly happy to change my mind if I'm shown wrong, but so far I haven't been shown wrong. My position is that there are few if any neuroscientists who work at neuralink.

Instead, it's full of engineers solving what are probably complicated engineering problems, but problems that have little to do with the neuroscientific questions that would need to be addressed before they could deliver on their promises.

>>11996720
>, you're referring to the 2008 Nature paper* by Velliste et al
No, NeuraLink probably didn't even exist back then. I know it has been done before. You claimed
>>11996373
>>scientists can do it
>>neuralink has done it
>these are worlds apart anon
Which was wrong, since the company HAS done it to test their equipment and algorithms.
>My claim is that these advances have nothing to do with neuralink
That's new and not what you said before. NeuraLink, e.g., created then neural sewing machine, which solves several problems of a more mechanical nature regarding electrode insertion and having them remain there for longer. Are you saying this is not a respectable advance?

>But even if I give you this one, you'd owe me 2 more
Not him, but why 3? And why only neuroscientists? You're just raising that number to make it more difficult to confirm to your standards, differing from what you initially wanted.

>Instead, it's full of engineers solving what are probably complicated engineering problems, but problems that have little to do with the neuroscientific questions that would need to be addressed before they could deliver on their promises.
It sounds like you vastly underestimate the capability of smart engineers.

>>11996763
>NeuraLink probably didn't even exist back then.
>probably
No, definitely.

>the company HAS done it to test their equipment and algorithms
This is simply not in line with reality. What algorithms? They haven't published any. They haven't presented any. They haven't even shown a single recording of neural activity. Not in the bioRxiv preprint, not in the opening presentation, not anywhere else. The first demonstration of this is scheduled for the 28th of August. Mind you, they're planning to present "neurons firing", which is nothing new or revolutionary. We've been able to do this for over 80 years. It's absolutely bog standard in every neuroscience lab to do this on a daily basis. And Musk is selling it as if it is somehow revolutionary.

>That's new and not what you said before.
Bullshit, it's been by claim since I entered this thread.

> Are you saying this is not a respectable advance?
Yes, that is what I'm claiming. Their device is sub-par compared to what exists and is widely available today. See e.g. considerations listed here: >>11993038
If you want further references for recording techniques that are available and exceed the capabilities of neuralink's device (including a sewing machine published earlier than the one by neuralink), have a further look here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24636
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/578542v1.abstract?%3Fcollection=
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438817303161
https://elifesciences.org/articles/47188
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8846063

>Not him, but why 3? And why only neuroscientists?
3 because it is a low number, neuroscientists because they'd be essential for solving the kinds of problems they're dealing

>>11996763
>Not him, but why 3?
Not him but the age of lone scientist is over. Scientists these days work together and it is important that you get a good working environment where you can get your ideas critically analysed but a peer.

>>11991904
Some faggot shit

You know how every human has a phone on them to use the internet and find out any fact they want in about a minute? Well now you can have a device that does the same thing as a phone, implanted into your brain so you can do this process without physically having to use phone.
>will i become a supergenius?
No, but you will be able to Google things and use a calculator entirely in your head, making you look really smart to brainlets. Hopefully the technology will get better and we can do more with it.

>>11991962
The government and/or Elon will probably use it to make you dumber so you're easier to control, more likely to buy useless shit, more likely to be distracted, and thus less likely to revolt against modern society if things get bad enough.

>>11992846
This.


Yeah Neuralink is a hard pass for me dawg.

>>11992294
I think he gets stage fright when hes giving these presentations. He talks fluidly and normal when hes on a podcast or whatever. It's just a part of his job to hype up his projects, but he would probably leave it to others that are better at it if he could. Personally, I have a hard enough time giving a class presentation to 12 people over Zoom let alone thousands over the net.

>>11996763
>>11996685
>>11996642
>the absolute state of musk fanbois
kek, anon asked for 3 scientists and you fags wiggle and squirm and can't even name a single one

>>11996985
Could be good fun.

Imagine being able to shitpost on sci telepathically.

In all seriousness though if it works out it's going to be the next "personal computer" tier tech gadget that's going to change the world.

yeah yeah you have a bunch of fgts in this thread saying "muh brain security".

in the end it won't matter. either you do this or you fall so far behind everyone else it'd be like being born without eyes in a world where everyone else has eyes.


Information lookup is just the start. Things like Wolfram Alpha on nuerallink will probably let you get a intuitive feel for arbitrarily complex functions just by looking at equations.

being in constant telepathic communication with others will probably open up some completely unimaginable/unfathomable social system.

>>11997010
too bad it's all a big fucking pipe dream

I only do it if it replicates the sensation of drugs, then I will never leave my apartment

>>11997018
What makes you think so?

>>11997131
-> >>11993038

>>11997139
I read that already and does not answer the question. Sure this present case might be over hyped but that does not mean the concept is a pipe dream.

>>11997227
eh, fair enough I suppose

Im just pessimistic because the sales pitch doesn't seem to match the results, and it looks more like musk is trying sell hopes and dreams instead of a product

>>11997269
Mush talks about hope and dreams. And then he goes back, hires top people and turn it to reality.

I used to be a researcher many years ago and remember all the gizmos people were thinking of, still many are not here yet. I knew people working on neuromagentism, detecting brain activity by the minuscule magnetic fields to better locate sources of epilepsy. And still this is in the labs only.

Neuralink is the perfect solution to the midwit problem. Minds tend to think alike, so it makes sense. Only have city slicking get the procedure, now jews can't use (((porn))) as mind control if neuralink destroys people's urges to coom in anything that isn't a healthy member of the opposite sex.

>>11997639
>so it makes sense
Anon...

>>11997580
>I knew people working on neuromagentism, detecting brain activity by the minuscule magnetic fields to better locate sources of epilepsy. And still this is in the labs only
I'm not the anon you're replying to, but this is nonsense. Magnetic fields generated by neurons are what is measured with magnetoencephalography, which is widely used for the diagnosis of epilepsy if electrencephalography fails to pick up on anything. It's not just in the labs, it's in every major hospital. Now there's a new generation of these sensors that don't rely on superconductors, called optically pumped magnetometers. They'll soon be widely available too.

>>11998103
The people I worked with used a SQUID and said it would locate the epileptic origin to within a few cubic millimetres. It was not for diagnosis but for localisation.

>>11991904
freemason conspiracy

>>11998221
Yeah there's limits on the spacial precision you can get with SQUIDS but it's mostly due to motion. You'd need a personalized head cast which doesn't come cheap. OPMs might help there since movement less of an issue. The reason these things haven't reached clinical practice is probably because of a cost / benefit trade off: why localize at a few millimeters if a centimeter is close enough and costs a thousands less? OPMs are brand new and come with their own issues (need a 0 gauss chamber) but they'll soon replace the SQUID systems entirely. So in my view no Musk is needed here, or even helpful to be honest. But that's just my opinion.

>>11996810
>This is simply not in line with reality.
Wtf are you talking about? They literally did it.
>What algorithms?
The ones operating their equipment.
>which is nothing new or revolutionary
You just don't get it. We also made electricity for how long? Yet, when a new battery technology arrives, it's groundbreaking although it does the exact same thing. They developed completely new devices and demonstrate that they can reproduce what old devices could. How is that so difficult to understand for you if you claim to be a neuroscientist?

>Bullshit, it's been by claim since I entered this thread
I don't care, I only react to posts you made and showed that your assumptions were incorrect. Why is it so difficult for you to admit you were wrong? Why do you instead move the goalpost?
>Yes, that is what I'm claiming. Their device is sub-par compared to what exists and is widely available today
Holy shit. Okay. So you're focusing on the disadvantages and completely ignore what they improved. I highly doubt you're a scientist.

>neuroscientists because they'd be essential for solving the kinds of problems they're dealing
Which are?

>>11996985
>he doesn't blindly follow critics by completely naysaying what Musk does
>he must be a fanboy
Names were dropped, on the posted links.

>>11998477
>why localize at a few millimeters if a centimeter is close enough and costs a thousands less?
A factor of 50? I would gladly pay a few thousands to keep as much as I can.

>>11992424
>imagine quadriplegics getting even something as basic as keyboard & mouse controls and how much that would improve their life

They've had invasive brain implants for this exact reason for many years. That's not a new invention.

>>11994467
Can someone explain this? Like how would the EMF which comes with streaming technology not fuck up the brain?

>>11998483
>Wtf are you talking about? They literally did it.
They've made a* device. They certainly have not made a revolutionary* device. What I was referring to initially was the 'interface' part of the claims by neuralink. I know neuroscientists have developed devices to allow a monkey to control a robotic arm, but neuralink doesn't even have the appropriate licensing to work with monkeys. You claimed that neuralink has a device that is "tested on monkeys". This is false.

>You just don't get it
No, you're the one who doesn't get it because you willfully ignore the evidence I've already pointed you to. They've made a device that can do less compared to what existing devices can (hence me pointing out that what scientists can do and what neuralink can do are separate things entirely). I've already posted not one but 5 papers to evidence this fact.

>Yet, when a new battery technology arrives...
You somehow seem unwilling or unable to consider the possibility that this whole song and jig that Musk is pulling is a sales pitch rather than an unbiased dissemination of facts. A new battery can be groundbreaking only if it has a particular function that exceeds existing batteries. Musk's device on the other hand is able to do less than what is already in the literature. You might then go on to claim that it might do better things in the future, but that'd be at odds with your "have done it" claim.

> I only react to posts you made and showed that your assumptions were incorrect.
My claims have been consistent throughout. Perhaps try articulating your position better and try reading mine for once.

>Why is it so difficult for you to admit you were wrong?
It's because I'm correct.

>Which are?
Understanding neural population code, noise variability, distributed representation and computation, etc. You still haven't named a single neuroscientist working there.

>So you're focusing on the disadvantages and completely ignore what they improved.
Which are?

>>11999899
>>Wtf are you talking about? They literally did it.
>They've made a* device. They certainly have not made a revolutionary* device.
?
>neuralink doesn't even have the appropriate licensing to work with monkeys. You claimed that neuralink has a device that is "tested on monkeys". This is false.
reddit
slash r
Neuralink/comments/chq07b/another_source_to_watch_for_news_about_that/
>Elon Musk mentions they still work with UC Davis on all their monkey experiments: https://youtu.be/r-vbh3t7WVI?t=5046
>Here is an article about their contract with UC Davis’s National Primate Center from May 2018: https://gizmodo.com/neuralink-is-funding-primate-research-at-the-university-1826205424
Took me exactly two seconds to find.

>No, you're the one who doesn't get it because you willfully ignore the evidence I've already pointed you to.
Incorrect. You're ignoring what their device improved.

> but that'd be at odds with your "have done it" claim.
See above.

>My claims have been consistent throughout. Perhaps try articulating your position better and try reading mine for once.
I literally quoted what I was replying to. You changed that statement to save face.

>It's because I'm correct.
See above.

>Understanding neural population code, noise variability, distributed representation and computation, etc. You still haven't named a single neuroscientist working there.
Cool that you ignore the neuroscientist that was mentioned and also the list of employees from that reddit thread.

Funny Elon musk wholesome 100 keanu reeves big chungus

>>11999932
>Took me exactly two seconds to find.
>Neuralink inked the deal with UC Davis in September 2017, roughly three months after it told city officials in San Francisco that it had abandoned plans to build out an animal testing lab at its headquarters there.
Fucking kek, this literally shows they've given up trying to build an animal facility themselves. Instead they're now relying on external scientists that already do this kind of work. It corroborates my exact point rather than argues against it.

>You're ignoring what their device improved.
Then name 1 (one) improvement over what is already in the literature. Be concrete so that we can discuss it. Otherwise we're just jerking each other off.

>I literally quoted what I was replying to. You changed that statement to save face.
Are you delusional? I haven't changed any statement. My claim is and always has been that what their device can do and what scientists can do are separate things.

>>11998483
>Names were dropped
lol, no, quote the name, because no one posted any

>>11991904
The beginning of commercial BMI's that directly augment the brain. So it's obviously a good thing in retrospect. Elon's shilling of AI/human symbiosis is retarded, but that judgement is probably just a result of my ignorance. I just think it's retarded because it's not going to happen for a very long time. He's just trying to sell snake oil to people to get the "I LOVE SCIENCE" crowd on board.

>>12000000
>>11999999
checked

>>11999960
>Fucking kek, this literally shows they've given up trying to build an animal facility themselves. Instead they're now relying on external scientists that already do this kind of work. It corroborates my exact point rather than argues against it.
I knew exactly that you were going to say this.
>they did not do the experiment
>scientists work together now
>noooo, but they didn't do it themselves
>they worked together with people who know how to do it it doesn't count
I'm beginning to think you're simply trolling now.

>Are you delusional?
No, you are. Just follow the chain of posts. I said
>>11996321
>What do you mean it doesn't work? It already works. Tested on monkeys.
To which you replied
>>11996373
>these are worlds apart anon
To which I provided links showing that they had indeed done it. You then changed your narrative to
>>11996720
>My claim is that these advances have nothing to do with neuralink, the company, which has demonstrated nothing of the sort
which is a different point.

>>11992294
By being a shut-in computer programmer. Give him a break. He's one of the only billionaires with true vision.

>>12000021
Shit, you're right. I didn't post because I can't link the source here.
Philip Sabes from UCSF center for integrative neuroscience
Tim Gardner, Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon

>>11993566
>we'll probably never understand
Its made of matter. It will be understood. What bothers me are people like you, who are doomers with no vision.

>>12000194
>they didn't do it themselves
In essence yes, because that's what I've been arguing.

Let's not forget that a deal with external collaborators is a fancy way of saying they're now engaged in 3rd party funding. Such 3rd party funding deals come with contractual stipulations (as is usually the case with deals of this kind, and explicitly here too as outlined in the article you've posted) that state that neuralink has little say in the direction of the conducted experiments. The only legal control that neuralink has over the research that is conducted is that they can veto publication of corporately sensitive information. This is a major difference from claiming that neuralink itself is engaged in the research.

Aside from that, a collaboration deal with external scientists in an of itself does not support your initial claim of
>tested on monkeys
>To which I provided links showing that they had indeed done it.
The as of yet only published result by neuralink (their preprint) is a device for implantation in rodents. Setting up an in-vivo experiment in primates can take a very long time (in the order of half a decade to a full decade) because working with primates is a different ballgame compared to working with rodents. My guess is that they're in the process of setting up expedited experiments of this kind - distinctly different from having already performed and validated them, as you have claimed. My issue here is that you seem unable to understand the profound difference between
>have done it
and
>plan to do it
These two are very different things, and anyone can claim to be in the process of working towards a particular goal. But what matters is the end result, which in the present case is distinctly lacking.

And because you are persistently and annoyingly ignoring this point, I'll just put it here again until you address it:
>Then name 1 (one) improvement over what is already in the literature. Be concrete so that we can discuss it.

>>12000205
now we're getting somewhere, that's 2/3

>>12000241
>Let's not forget that a deal with external collaborators is a fancy way of saying they're now engaged in 3rd party funding.
What?
>that state that neuralink has little say in the direction of the conducted experiments
Literally what?
>Aside from that, a collaboration deal with external scientists in an of itself does not support your initial claim
Of course not. But the fact that they did conduct the experiment in collaboration with them does. As mentioned, several sites directly report that they've tested their equipment in monkeys. Sure, they didn't publish anything because (can't post source because of spam detection) they aren't allowed to currently. Doesn't mean they didn't do it.

>because you are persistently and annoyingly ignoring this point
I mentioned two things a few posts back, so...
I wanted to see how you react to the other stuff first to be honest here. And as it turns out, troll replies as I suspected. In the unlikely case that you're indeed a neuroscientist, you're probably confusing what NeuraLink does with contract work neuroscientists sometimes do for grants and direct funding. Worlds apart, Anon.
Anyway:
>flexible insertions instead of stiff ones
>while having a "stiff" insertion device
>minimal penetration
>laser drill to avoid skull vibration
>high speed
>high accuracy
>will be commercially feasible
>successfully tested on rats
From the top of my head.

>>12000294
>What?
>Literally what?
> troll replies as I suspected
Do I need to point out the irony here or is it obvious?

To elaborate, the following is from the article you posted:
>Davis researchers are allowed to publish their findings based on Neuralink-funded research, provided that they allow Neuralink to review the work prior to publication for confidential information
Many journals, especially the major ones, require conflict of interest statements that make explicit that 3rd party funder agencies have no say in the experimental design or over the results of the conducted work (have a look at COI statements in e.g. Nature or Science). The purpose of this is to ensure that for example a pharma company cannot unjustly influence clinical trials to support the efficacy of a new medication. It applies here legally, since neuralink has taken on the role of a 3rd party funder. As such, when the funding is awarded to scientists at US Davis, neuralink contractually foregoes any say in the experimental design and results.

>As mentioned, several sites directly report that they've tested their equipment in monkeys.
That is fine but perhaps we have different standards of evidence. You might want to take Musk at his word and accept that it's all working smoothly if he says it is. But I go by evidence that can be quantitatively assessed by the scientific community at large. What if spaceX is claiming to have landed people on Mars but they're simply not allowed to show documented evidence because of a gag order? Would you believe it just the same? For me the situation is comparable because the reason they're not allowed to show documented results is literally because Musk has vetoed it, as is his contractual right (see quote above).

>>12000294
>>12000427

>flexible insertions instead of stiff ones
>while having a "stiff" insertion device
>minimal penetration
>laser drill to avoid skull vibration
>high speed
>high accuracy
>will be commercially feasible
>successfully tested on rats

Like I said, this in no way exceeds what is in the literature already. The following was published prior to Neuralink's device, and already contains literally all of the above features:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/578542v1.full.pdf
>a system incorporating fine and flexible thin-film polymer probes, a fine and stiff insertion needle
>the system permits rapid and precise implantation of probes, each individually targeted to avoid observable vasculature and to attain diverse anatomical target
>feasible and scalable
>laser micro-durotomy
>shows voltage traces in rats
You may think neuralink's device exceeds what is in the literature, but it simply doesn't. Perhaps you're simply impressed because you haven't seen any of these devices before and Musk is pretending like this is somehow new or revolutionary. But that doesn't mean they don't in fact exist and are widely used already.

>>12000457
>Like I said, this in no way exceeds what is in the literature already. The following was published prior to Neuralink's device, and already contains literally all of the above features:
Look at this guy frantically googling anything to support his case, trying to sound superior, without actually realizing most of the authors work/used to work at neuralink. Fucking idiot.

>>12000482
>frantically googling
I've posted it before, I didn't have to google anything.

>without actually realizing most of the authors work/used to work at neuralink.
I was most certainly aware of this, but it's irrelevant since this work is not neuralink's. It was published before they had any neuralink affiliation.

>Fucking idiot.
Try an argument instead.

>>12000498
>I've posted it before, I didn't have to google anything.
Oh so it just magically appeared on your system?

>I was most certainly aware of this,
No, you weren't. Look at the language you used you fucking trollop.

>Try an argument instead.
Ok, It wasn't published, it hasn't been published, and it was well after their affiliation with neuralink.

>>12000457
>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/578542v1.full.pdf
>March 24, 2019
Look at the last author. Compare to
>>12000205
Feel ashamed.

>>12000498
>It was published before they had any neuralink affiliation.
Errrrr, nope.

>>12000500
>Oh so it just magically appeared on your system?
No, I get updates from bioRxiv when new preprints relevant for my field arrive. I've known about this paper for a while before this thread.

>No, you weren't.
I was. This is not up for debate.

>Ok, It wasn't published, it hasn't been published,
Are you joking? I've posted the link already. It's a preprint but that's considered a published result.

>the language you used
What language? Literal quotes from the paper?

>>12000501
>>12000504
Check the affiliations in the paper numbnuts. UCSD and Berkley, no mention of Neuralink, whereas current papers by Sabes now include a neuralink affiliation.

>>12000427
>Neuralink-funded research
Gitta admit, I didn't know that. I thought it was an intellectual collaboration. Still, you don't really think NeuraLink grants them money and just let's them do experiments like whatever, do you? They do test NeuraLink's equipment and all this legally means is that NeuraLink cannot and must not influence their methods/results, but they can very well say "here, we developed this thing, test it on monkeys and see whether they can control devices".
>You might want to take Musk at his word and accept that it's all working smoothly if he says it is
How is this related to multiple sources saying that they literally did the experiment? You're changing the narrative again from
>they didn't perform it
to
>it doesn't work smoothly

Regarding the rest, see other Anon's replies. In the paper you linked, look at page 2 onwards at the top, what does it say?

>>12000513
>Check the affiliations in the paper numbnuts. UCSD and Berkley, no mention of Neuralink, whereas current papers by Sabes now include a neuralink affiliation.
The point is, they are literally the same machine. You argued that the neural sewing machine is nothing new because this other machine was mentioned before, but it turned out its the exact same machine.
Not sure about neuroscience, but where I work you first do small projects with a company before they fund you.

>>12000523
>Still, you don't really think NeuraLink grants them money and just let's them do experiments like whatever, do you?
Actually yes, because that's how 3rd party funding works. I receive 3rd party funding myself. After the funds are rewarded I can decide to completely and radically change the design of the studies that were in the initial proposal for funding, and that sometimes happens because of unforeseen study design issues, and legally the 3rd party funder can do nothing about it. Once the money is in, that's it. The work is my intellectual property and it must and will reflect my scientific interests rather than that of the funder.

>How is this related to multiple sources saying that they literally did the experiment?
Who's multiple sources? A few websites reporting the same claim by Musk is not what I consider evidence. But like I said, perhaps we have different standards.

>You're changing the narrative again
I'm not changing anything. Your original claim was that it works.

> look at page 2 onwards at the top, what does it say?
It says the “sewing machine” for minimally invasive neural recording?

>>12000529
>The point is, they are literally the same machine.
And there we have it. Neuralink acquired the expertise of people with an existing device, changed the design up a little, and then sold it as if it were something new. That's the point. You people are willfully persistently arguing that in fact neuralink has done something new, but they have not.

>>12000561
Sigh... Okay, one more round.
>Actually yes, because that's how 3rd party funding works.
Read the other part. Before you get funding, you have to prove you're worth it and do something for the investor. Yes, after they tested that device as a project, NeuraLink funded them.
>After the funds are rewarded I can decide to completely and radically change the design of the studies that were in the initial proposal for funding
And risk losing the next round of money. Sure. That is entirely possible. It's just not how 95% of research works.

>Who's multiple sources?
I wish I could post links here. Several employees and guys from collaborators. Feel free to prove you're able to use Google or one of its alternatives.

>Your original claim was that it works
And you made it to "it doesn't work smoothly", which is different. You keep changing what you're talking about to avoid admitting that you've been wrong about a few things.

>Neuralink acquired the expertise of people with an existing device, changed the design up a little, and then sold it as if it were something new
Source for that claim? I'm seeing
NeuraLink: hey, we've got this design idea, can you test it for us? We'll fund your research then.
Sabes: okay, done.
>willfully persistently arguing
kek

>>12000626
>Read the other part. Before you get funding, you have to prove you're worth it and do something for the investor. Yes, after they tested that device as a project, NeuraLink funded them.
This is a strange twist of reality as this is not how events occurred. Sabes et al have been working on this for a long time, it's his line of work for many years. Musk found out about it and decided to acquire it. This device was not designed with the intention of acquiring money from Musk.

>It's just not how 95% of research works.
It's funny you feel you know my line of work better than I do.

>And you made it to "it doesn't work smoothly"
I never made it that, "smoothly" was hyperboly to argue that we have no convincing evidence if its functionality in primates despite what Musk might claim.

> I'm seeing hey, we've got this design idea, can you test it for us? We'll fund your research then.
kek, no one in their right mind is going to divert 10s of millions of preallocated research funds in this way. Sabes was working on this stuff long before Musk entered the scene. Have a look at his publication record.

>>12000645
>It's funny you feel you know my line of work better than I do.
Never claimed to. See >>12000529
>Not sure about neuroscience, but where I work
>I never made it that, "smoothly" was hyperboly to argue that we have no convincing evidence
Ah, of course. Now it just means something different. Okay.

>This is a strange twist of reality as this is not how events occurred
Now you know what it feels like to argue with you.

I learned two things in this thread thanks to you, but other than that, you're a waste of time because your discussion culture is sub-par.

>>12000561
>I receive 3rd party funding myself.
Obviously from the government, not companies.

>>12000673
>Never claimed to.
You've made a manner of factual claim about my field, and it's a false one. If you weren't sure than why phrase it that way?

>Ah, of course. Now it just means something different. Okay.
I'm responsible for the things that I say, not for what you read into them.

>I learned two things in this thread thanks to you, but other than that, you're a waste of time because your discussion culture is sub-par.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps it helps to not get emotionally invested in arguments and actually consider what the opposing side is saying.

>>12000675
No, especially companies (these types of contracts are standard specifically because of corporate pressure on published results, i.e. the pharma sector example I brought up earlier). This largely applies to government funding too, but those are by definition not 3rd party funding.

>>12000675
I misread your post.

To clarify, I receive funding that is indirectly from the government, but additionally receive funding directly from corporations.

>>12000682
>I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps it helps to not get emotionally invested in arguments and actually consider what the opposing side is saying.
Not him, but spoken like a true retard lol. Practice what you preach.

Also
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralink
>Neuralink was founded in 2016 by Elon Musk, Ben Rapoport, Dongjin Seo, Max Hodak, Paul Merolla, Philip Sabes, Tim Gardner, Tim Hanson, and Vanessa Tolosa.
>Philip Sabes
>2016

>the company has hired several high-profile neuroscientists from various universities.
>several [...] neuroscientists

Regarding algorithms:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B2-YiXuXdp8

I'm sure you're capable of scrolling to the sources at the bottom, you sorry excuse of a "scientist". Get rid of that shitty attitude.

>>12000727
I've never denied that Sabes is part of Neuralink. I'm claiming that the device I've linked to predates his affiliation, as evidenced by the fact that his affiliation isn't in listed in the article. These things take years to do and as such the vast majority of the work was conducted before Neuralink existed. There's a substantial lag between the work that goes into the preprint and the public appearance of the preprint. Three years after moving institutions I'm still publishing work with an affiliation of my previous institution, for example, because the affiliation should reflect the funding institution and the place where the work was actually conducted.

>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B2-YiXuXdp8
I'm not going to watch some youtube video that discusses the neuralink preprint, I've already read the neuralink preprint itself.

>you sorry excuse of a "scientist"
Try an argument.

>>12000742
>scientist has cool idea
>he works on it
>founds company based on idea
>nooooo that means it's not the company's because he worked on it before founding his own company based on that design you can't use that argument
This is standard procedure how are you so dense about this?

>I've already read the neuralink preprint itself.
>noooo I don't accept that evidence
doubt.jpg, because you argued they aren't talking about algorithms.

>>12000207
The fact that it's made of matter isn't relevant at all. We already know the material properties of the brain.
What we need to understand is the computational properties and it may be the case for that to be computationally intractable or undecidable. It's probably likely, in fact.

>>11993566
>At very best, neural link will fix simple mental conditions like restore vision and hearing or other simple disabilities.
Yeah bro, that's like nothing bro. Simple trick everyone can do it bro.

>>12000761
>This is standard procedure how are you so dense about this?
You're misrepresenting my line of argumentation. I'm claiming that what musk et al have done is not new to what has been done before. I.e. what is in the preprint with musk as sole author, and what is in their launch presentation, does not exceed what was already publicly accessible, despite it being presented as such and argued as such by people in this thread.

Besides, I've also posted a bunch of papers with recording techniques that far exceed the one by Neuralink, and the prior one by Sabes for that matter. These are from several years ago, and went completely ignored by you et al.

>you argued they aren't talking about algorithms.
Don't put words in my mouth. I've called into question that they've published algorithms. They use spike sorting, which function through algorithms that have been around for literally decades.

Anyway, I'm done arguing with you because you're not arguing in good faith. Enjoy the 404, I won't be around for it.

>>11996810
>https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24636
223€, but Timothy Harisson who is affiliated
>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/578542v1.abstract?%3Fcollection
Philip Sabes
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438817303161
Compare the numbers to NeuraLink device.
>https://elifesciences.org/articles/
This seems cool, I'd have to read more.
>https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8846063
Timothy Harris again, who is affiliated.

So?

>>12000814
>223€
Use sci-hub to get around the paywall. Are you a board tourist or something?
>Timothy Harisson
Like I said, this is irrelevant to the argument since this concerns work conducted prior to the neuralink affiliation, and more importantly, is already widely adopted in the field.
>Compare the numbers to NeuraLink device.
I did, you should too. 1000 recording sites per shank versus 32 recording sites per shank. Note that a shank is a single thread, neuralink allows to implant multiple threads (hence the 10k channel claim), but so do neuropixels. Ken Harris' lab has already done recordings of 10k+ units several years ago.
>So?
If you're willfully ignoring the argument then that's up to you. I have other things to do now.

>>12000832
>irrelevant to the argument
>work conducted prior to the neuralink affiliation,
>2017
>NeuraLink founding date: 2016
>Philip Sabes and Thomas Harisson published together
>scientist letting PostDocs and PhD students do the actual work is something out of the ordinary

>1000 recording sites per shank versus 32 recording sites per shank
>one aspect better than the other device

k

>>12000848
>the work is done the day an article is published
k

>>12000861
>not the point
k

>>12000871
it's exactly the point

Is Elon musk actually in this thread?
I refuse to believe there is someone who's such a fan boy that he'd argue for days against a neuroscientist about his field.

>>12000873
You still seem to not grasp the fact that scientists work for long times on projects which they later found a company on. It's hilarious seeing you try to bend everything you said before just to fit your line of reasoning just to avoid saying you've been wrong. Not even after more than 3 neuroscientists were named did you accept that you were wrong, even though you promised you'd do. And then accusing others of not arguing in good faith. Ridiculous.

>>12000882
If you're referring to me, I'm not arguing against him about his field, I'm arguing that his reading comprehension is dogshit. So is yours, it seems. But thanks for proving once again that /sci/ is a cesspool of Dunning-Kruger victims backpatting each other for their failure on the simplest of tasks.

>>12000882
How is this related to Musk? The discussion is about NeuraLink and papers. Nobody is fanboying him here so far. Everybody is well aware that he's not the lead scientist or anything of worth to the company other than a funder and PR guy. Are you bringing this up so you can display your superior edginess and bash Musk for something he didn't do, because it's hip?

>>11991915
No, it's hype technology for injured people. Soibois just want it for themselves.

>“Neuralink optimized their technology for implanting in human surgical patients — people who have quadriplegia and can’t move their limbs, and they need a direct interface to their brain in order to be able to move a robot arm and regain control over their limbs, potentially,” he said. “The Neuropixels probes were optimized specifically as a device for scientific research.”

- Josh Siegle, a senior scientist at the institute who works with Neuropixels

https://www.geekwire.com/2019/allen-institute-kicks-brain-wave-recording-overdrive-neuropixels-probe/

>>12000959
>I'm arguing that his reading comprehension is dogshit.
Except it isn't, he hasn't made a false claim and you have substantiated none of your claims.
>Dunning-Kruger victims backpatting each other for their failure on the simplest of tasks.
The dunning kruger is you, the moron who thinks he knows more than the neuroscientist in his field and posts irrelevant articles thinking he's "proved" himself right, when he hasnt.
>>12001009
No, see above.

Neuropixels cannot be used for stimulation, however Neuralink is designed to be bidirectional

>>11996321
Its always the same with Musk projects. Armchairs always say "NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! ITS IMPOSSIBLE MY BOOK SAYS SO!!!" Every single one of Musk's half a dozen or so projects.

>>12000882
Not believing in conspiracy theories and not being a liberal doesn't make someone Elon Musk lmao. You got an axe to grind with the guy for whatever "wrong" he did to you.

>>12001081
I know you're the "neuroscientist" samefagging, but anyway:
>Except it isn't, he hasn't made a false claim and you have substantiated none of your claims.
Here: >>11996373
BTFO by the fact that they did.
Here: >>11996615
More than 3 scientists were named
Here: >>11996720
He claimed NeuraLink had nothing to do with the advances, although the scientists who founded it did the work that he himself quoted.
In the same post he claims NeuraLink is full of engineers and neglects the fact that several scientists work there, BTFO by the named scientists indeed working there, solving the scientific part of the problems.
Here: >>11996810
He argues they haven't presented any algorithms, although these were mentioned in the paper he claims to have read.
Same post, he claims the employees never showed any recording of neural activity, but the paper he himself posted show otherwise.
He also claims the device is nothing new or revolutionizing, quiting papers that were actually published by NeuraLink scientists as a counterargument. He even says it is "sub-par to what exists", quoting the exact same device that NeuraLink is using (among one paper about NeuroPixels, okay).
Here: >>11999899
He claimed NeuraLink does not have a device that was tested in monkeys. His is proven false by the fact that the University of Davis did exactly that. He even contradicts himself in the very same post later.
Same post, he also claims his claims had been persistent throughout, while I quoted the passage where he changed from "their device doesn't work" to "their device doesn't work smoothly".

Now I don't want to continue. Is that enough, you illiterate piece of shit?
We never argued about neuroscience.

>>12001102
>Neuralink is designed
The aim is, but probably not the initial design. They will build devices step by step that allows for bidirectional, but won't be bidirectional initially due to it being slightly more harder. Once they can perfect reading, then writing could be done gradually. I suspect it would take atleast 3-5 generations of neuralink before bidirectional becomes the norm.

Fuck jewlon cuck and fuck starlink

>>11994971
Yeah this is actually a good point

>>12001126
True. I'm not at all a fan of him, but I gotta admit, his persistence against all this backlash is remarkable.
Since these are the times of social media, he gets more backlash than earlier inventors trying to push the boundaries.

>>12001140
>Yessenia Funes
YASSSS QUEEN

>>11993566
Dude no shit, the whole idea is it can restore major neurological malfunctions like paraplegia.

Did you really think it was some magic computer chip that would read all your thoughts and cure your depression you fag

>>11994518
That is until the methodology is perfected and it becomes more efficient

>>11994518
Judging by the current state of the launch market it is evidently not cheaper to destroy giant precision engineered metal towers than it is to just use more fuel and oxidizer instead.

Truly this is a shocking development.

>>11991904
Just the same thing as any other recent DUDE SCIENCE bullshit and especially the bullshit coming out of this hypeman's mouth. We are not yet ready for things like this. Whatever implementation is going to come out of this WILL be complete bullshit and will have tens of severe side effects, all of which will be pushed under the rug because DUDE SCIENCE is more important than them. The exact same thing happened (is happening) to Tesla. DUDE ELECTRIC VEHICLES and all that, but reality is, they are still very unfeasible and the handful of people capable of affording them made exactly zero change contrary to the actual supposed goal of the company (this is excluding the fact that the lithium supply on Earth will be depleted or highly unfeasible in a few years if all of humanity went electric). The exact same thing happened to his bankrupt solar panel company, the same thing happened to his cars being autonomous by 2020, the exact same thing happened to Martian colony by 2020, hyperloop, openAI - all baseless hype by a conman to get his shares up. And at no point did he actually even believe in these things because he specifically knows the limitations of his companies and the state of current society, but he pretended that he did to make money.

or in more phoneposter-friendly terms, this >>11991915

>>12001148
Social media gives people a sense of entitlement. In the old days, idea guys are considered non-sense, but with idea guys flocking to other idea guys, they think themselves super smart. The real ones who are smart are those that actually do it. Moving thousands of people to create a project from ground up requires tremendous skills in management alone, then you have to be very smart to give you a sense of condifence but also have to be extremely dedicated/persevere through all your doubts that pester you as you spend all your money on it. Potential for bankrupty for a new (electric) car/solar power/battery/space rocket/tunnel digging/ai/bci company is immense, let alone doing all of them at the same time.

As far as I've read, the guy micromanages his companies to the nth degree. So I don't know how he's able to do all that or how long he can keep going for. He seems to be doing it fine for the last 20 years or so, so I hope there's a good 20 years ahead for him.

>>11994518
Wrong. The Falcon 9 is cheaper than the most cheapest disposable option. Heck, its not only cheaper by 2-3x, but offers 2x more payload.

If you think the elite of this world will permit their docile and obedient smooth brain workers to have superhuman thinking capacity i've got a beach house i can sell you in idaho real cheap.

>>12001200
Stop lying retard

>>12001192
I agree with all of this. I was in the startup business once and learned quite quickly that even the best ideas are worthless. If I give you a penny, then you have a penny. If I tell you about my idea, we both have it. It's building a product and a business out of an idea that is the true accomplishment.

>>12001212
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/34398/cheapest-rocket-to-go-to-space
>Their Electron rocket is one of the smallest orbital rockets ever designed. It can send about 150 kg into orbit for the low, low price of $6 million.
>At $40,000/kg that's quite expensive; SpaceX can lift much more at prices below $10,000/kg

>>12001247
capitalism works

>>11993149
Sauce?

>>12001281
the real socialism yes
but real socialism wouldn't be allowed because of reasons like tax
going against the tax would be considered racist for obvious jew reasons

>>12001299
Eudeamon. It is a story that often comes up in these discussions and is also mentioned in the /cyb/ FAQ. Direct link:
http://www.evil-dolly.com/assets/eudeamon.pdf

It starts out looking liker a fetishistic story (and sure has inspired a lot of people) but takes a few surprising twists in other directions. It would probably be impossible to make a movie of it, but a comics series would work. I liked it but many anons gets feels overload.

On the technical level it involves a neuroelectric interface with some interesting consequences.

>>11991904
Literally snake oil

>>11996257
Neuralink of course. In their opening event they showed some results from letting a neural network try to decode brain signals and it's basically like how a computer operates except instead of a binary system it has at least 4 different signal states. And it doesn't has to operate in a grid organization.

>>11991904
I can't wait to link to my 2d girl friend that only exists in virtual reality while I injest algae food.

>>12001133
For the record, my last post in the thread was this one: >>12000873

You're persistently misinterpreting and misrepresenting my posts.
>BTFO by the fact that ...
Did what? My contention has always been that "it" refers to building a device that exceeds what was already in the literature before, which they have not done
>More than 3 scientists were named
Two were named (Sabes, Gardner). I've always been willing to concede this point if shown wrong (>>11996615). Just FYI, even before that post I had looked up which neuroscientists have a neuralink affiliation. I know there are exactly 3, with one not yet named by anyone in this thread. I've made this request for them to be named to gauge whether the other poster is actually knowledgeable about the company or whether they are simply parroting manic optimism, which in fact they turned out to be
>He claimed NeuraLink had nothing to do with ...
Which is true. I'm not saying these people are incompetent, I'm saying that their contributions to the field did not involve their work for neuralink. Neuralink, the company, has not produced anything that significantly advances the field.
>He argues they haven't presented any algorithms
Which is also true. They use a spike sorting algorithm. That's not "their" algorithm, that's something that's been around for decades
>He even says it is "sub-par to what exists"
Yes, evidenced by the fact that a non-neuralink sewing machine already exists. Also evidenced by the fact that other techniques exists with higher channel density and durability, which I've cited
>He claimed NeuraLink does not have a device that was tested in monkeys ...
I'll admit that I wasn't aware of the UC Davis link before this thread. But I maintain that there is no quantitative evidence of the efficacy of the device in primates.
>he changed from "their device doesn't work" to ....
Go back and re-read my post because I've never claimed that their device does not work.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

>>12000959
>You still seem to not grasp the fact that scientists work for long times on projects which they later found a company on.
I understand this perfectly well. My claim is and always has been that what the company has done and presented thus far does not advance the field. There's no demonstrable added benefit of neuralink, the company, over what was in the literature before and published unrelated to what neuralink itself has produced. I've already articulated exactly this in my very first post in this thread (>>11993038), and I've followed this line of argumentation throughout.

You're the one who seems unable to understand that neuralink the company, and work produced by scientists that is published without a neuralink affiliation are separate entirely. If I develop a new technique, and then move to a different institution, that prior work is not the intellectual property of my new institution. Scientific "credit" is assigned to institutions via an affiliation listed in an article. This isn't up for debate. It's also the exact reason for why neuralink published a paper with musk as sole author, including a neuralink affiliation, that describes a device that was already published, more or less identically. It's so that the company could take credit for it. But you morons don't seem to realize that it's re-packaging an existing device, then selling it as if it were new and better than what was out there already.

> seeing you try to bend everything
You're the one bending my words and trying to get me to defend a position I never adopted, and then getting mad when I refuse to do so. You can throw temper tantrums all you like, it will not change my position.
>more than 3 neuroscientists were named
You seem to be having some trouble counting, because only two were named (Sabes, Gardner). I'm still perfectly willing to concede the point if you can name a third, or if you can point me to the name that I've overlooked in this thread if I have done so.

>>12002079
Oh god, I scrolled fast within it. Consider I still caught the important part.
It would be easier to read if it didn't delve into those fetishist appeal.
The concept is... acceptable but oh Eudeamon the ethic of this is probably wrong.

I say probably because (spoiler)
Having a 'sentient' AI grow out of your own mind and 'complete you' would require rewriting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

>>12003848
>It would be easier to read if it didn't delve into those fetishist appeal.
That is over after chapter 5. There is less sex in this story than your average Hollywood movie.
>The concept is... acceptable but oh Eudeamon the ethic of this is probably wrong.
The intention was not bad but the reality of a longer duration was not know. The whodunnit part was of course unethical.
>I say probably because (spoiler)
>Having a 'sentient' AI grow out of your own mind and 'complete you' would require rewriting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The effect over time was a case of emergent behaviour plus a few more spoilery things that, yea, would be at odds with today's concepts of human rights and law. If you read the entire story and take one step back, it looks like a classic case of a hero's journey.

My background is in science and law (mostly patent law) and the law of unintended consequences is quite real in bot fields. And this story fits well with that, in fact it provides two separate cases of it. Of course, once the case is blown open, how would a society react? A sequel could be interesting.

>>12003966
I would definitely NOT read a sequel of this.
While the concept deserve attention, the method and setting cannot afford to be held together by duct tape and squick.
The invention of AIs, even soft-AI will likely destroy our IP and patent legal framework (as it should).

Might as well make a movie based on this meme.

>>12001127
>conspiracy theories
the fuck are you talking about

>>12004056
>I would definitely NOT read a sequel of this.
OK, why not? Too kmuch feels?
>While the concept deserve attention, the method and setting cannot afford to be held together by duct tape and squick.
Most science fiction requires a leap of imagination and suspension of belief, then again science fiction some times turn into science fact.
>The invention of AIs, even soft-AI will likely destroy our IP and patent legal framework (as it should).
There is already case law that concluded AI cannot be an inventor. And without an inventor you cannot patent an invention. If we could determine what lies at the foundation of creativity and inventiveness, the inventive step would be done for and no patents would be granted. Many things could cause the end of patenting.
>Might as well make a movie based on this meme.
Isn't that just Gattaca?

>>11993149
She's a big gal

>>12003777
>You're persistently misinterpreting and misrepresenting my posts.
No, you're consistently and persistently changing your statements.
>My contention has always been that "it" refers to building a device that exceeds what was already in the literature before,
Wrong, as everybody can see in that linked post. You persistently claimed they haven't tested it on primates. Yet, they did.
>Two were named (Sabes, Gardner).
Plus the other ones who founded the company.
>willing to concede this point if shown wrong
So do you?
>which in fact they turned out to be
lol
>did not involve their work for neuralink.
It is their company.
>Which is also true
Someone else mentioned them. Sorry, you're wrong. I gotta admit, I personally didn't know that. Turns out they did even more than I knew. Even if any algorithms are inspired by common ones, their implementation and the interaction with the hardware needs testing. Which they did.
>has not produced anything that significantly advances the field.
You quoted the relevant papers yourself.
>non-neuralink sewing machine already exists.
Made by the owners of NeuraLink.
>other techniques exists with higher channel density and durability
Yup, specific single points in which they are better. But not at all points.
>I'll admit that I wasn't aware of the UC Davis link before this thread
Cool, that's a step forward finally. After ten or so posts.
>I maintain that there is no quantitative evidence of the efficacy of the device in primates
That's true. Nobody ever denied that.
>Go back and re-read my post because I've never claimed that their device does not work.
I quoted the post.
>Stop putting words in my mouth.
No u.

>>12003810
>You're the one who seems unable to understand that neuralink the company, and work produced by scientists that is published without a neuralink affiliation are separate entirely
It's not though. It's their company. It existed when they worked on upgrading the sewing machine. Affiliation wasn't mentioned because the company didn't fund them. Look, they can own a company, without the company paying their research. Sure, that changed so they had to mention the affiliation. Doesn't change the fact though. Would you argue that Google is not Alphabet's property because Brin and Page developed it in a garage before founding the company?
>If I develop a new technique, and then move to a different institution, that prior work is not the intellectual property of my new institution
Right.
>It's also the exact reason for why neuralink published a paper with musk as sole author, including a neuralink affiliation
A-ha! I'm seeing progress here. The affiliation is mentioned because...?
>You're the one bending my words
Quote me where I did that.
>and then getting mad when I refuse to do so.
lolwut? Look at the post where I quote all your slips.
>it will not change my position
Yeah, that's why people here lost all respect for you. You're not a scientist.
>You seem to be having some trouble counting,
Oof, maybe check this guy's post
>>12000727

>>11991904
I am not sure if true linking is possible but it is necessary if we want to transcend being extremely flawed biological machines

>>12003810
>You're the one who seems unable to understand that neuralink the company, and work produced by scientists that is published without a neuralink affiliation are separate entirely
It's not though. It's their company. It existed when they worked on upgrading the sewing machine. Affiliation wasn't mentioned because the company didn't fund them. Look, they can own a company, without the company paying their research. Sure, that changed so they had to mention the affiliation. Doesn't change the fact though.
>If I develop a new technique, and then move to a different institution, that prior work is not the intellectual property of my new institution
Right.
>It's also the exact reason for why neuralink published a paper with musk as sole author, including a neuralink affiliation
A-ha! I'm seeing progress here. The affiliation is mentioned because...?
>You're the one bending my words
Quote me where I did that.
>and then getting mad when I refuse to do so.
lolwut? Look at the post where I quote all your slips.
>it will not change my position
Yeah, that's why people here lost all respect for you. You're not a scientist.
>You seem to be having some trouble counting,
Oof, maybe check this guy's post
>>12000727

>>12004448
>>12004461

Again, you seem unwilling or unable to understand the simple fact that what has been produced by neuralink, the company, and the scientific community at large (including the ones who later founded neuralink) are dichotomous. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, and I'm not in the habit of repeating myself so this'll be the last time I say it. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.

>It is their company.
This is irrelevant, for the above reason.

>That's true. Nobody ever denied that.
So for all intents and purposes the claim that "it was tested on monkeys" is false, since we have no way to verify its veracity. It's the null hypothesis we have to go with until the converse is shown.

>Quote me where I did that.
I did, several times. You claimed repeatedly that I've said their device doesn't work. I never did.

>The affiliation is mentioned because...?
In order to re-package an existing device so that Musk can try to sell it to the public as if it is somehow something new, which it isn't.

>Oof, maybe check this guy's post
Benjamin Rapoport: Electrical and software engineer, and MD
Dongjin Seo: Electrical engineer
Max Hodak: Self-proclaimed "reality engineer"
Paul Merolla: Computer scientist
Philip Sabes: Has an engineering background but has been working in neuroscience for a long time, so close enough (1/3)
Tim Gardner: Neuroscientist (2/3)
Tim Hanson: Statistician and mathematician
Vanessa Tolosa: Biophysicist
Do your homework buddy.

>You're not a scientist.
Not that it's particularly relevant here but I am.

Anyway, enjoy the thread. I won't be replying anymore.

>>12004576
>Again, you seem unwilling or unable to understand the simple fact that what has been produced by neuralink, the company, and the scientific community at large (including the ones who later founded neuralink) are dichotomous
Again, the company already existed.
>So for all intents and purposes the claim that "it was tested on monkeys" is false
Changing your statement again. Last post, you questioned the quality of the equipment, now you question that the experiment has been done.
>I did, several times
No.
>You claimed repeatedly that I've said their device doesn't work. I never did.
>>11999899
First :
>You claimed that neuralink has a device that is "tested on monkeys". This is false
Wrong.
Second:
>>11996373
And
>>11996810
>>the company HAS done it
>this is simply not in line with reality

>In order to repackage...
Noooo, I really thought you'd see it. Need a hint? It involves money.

>but I am
Doubt, although I can believe you're an undergrad.

>I won't be replying anymore
Phew. Good riddance.

>>12004576
Fogot to add:
>Max Hodak
What did he work as before?
>Do your homework buddy.
I did. You?

>>11991904
It's going to help disabled people be a little less miserable. Normies won't be able to get it for a while, I definitely wouldn't recommend getting it until it's been in the field for a while.

>>12004697
not that anon but I can't find a scholar page or papers by this guy

>>12004729
nvm, found it
>https://maxhodak.com/
> biomedical engineering

>>12004729
He was working over four years with Miguel Nicolelis, renowned specialist in brain-machine interfaces and probably the third guy that "neuroscientist" meant.
>>12004755
By training, yes, but just like Sabes he worked as a neuroscientist.

>>12004761
you sound retarded anon it literally says he's an engineer and that he worked as an engineer

>>12004834
Hurr durr
https://golden.com/wiki/Max_Hodak
During his time at Duke University Hodak worked as a research assistant from February 2008 to May 2012 (4 years and 4 months) in the Duke Medical Center under the supervision of Miguel Nicolelis
>I let it count for Sabes but not for him

>you sound retarded anon
*You sound retarded, Anon.
I thought you didn't want to reply anymore?

>>11992369
>communication primarily done through electric signals
>send your own electric signals
>neurons figure it out
>wired in

>>12004842
look I don't really give a shit either way but being a lab tech for 4 months just doesn't make you a scientist

that other anon is as full of shit as you are but seems to me like you've been shitposting for too long because you're getting paranoid

>>12004842
the guy doesn't even have a masters degree lol

>>12004883
>implying anyone would read our autist screeching but you and me
>4 months
lrn2read

>>12004889
What makes a scientist? A piece of paper saying one is, or working in the field?

>>12004916
>any lab monkey is a scientist
gtfo retard

>>12004938
>calling names
kek, cool argument bro.

>>12004949
where the fuck do you think you are you stupid nigger

>>12004958
Look, what you could have done is the following:
>read the linked source
>see how the quoted sentence continues
>"where he assisted the building of brain-machine interfaces for Rhesus monkeys."
>argue that he did lab work and not science work
Instead, screeching "huurrrrrr you dum lol".
See it as an intelligence test, that you blatantly failed.

>>12004964
>building
>science
wow you really are a retarded nigger

>>12004916
>What makes a scientist?
when you publish scientific papers

>>12004977
Yeah like that, only that you're way too late.

>>12004990
Thanks. What separates scientific papers from engineering papers?

>>12005008
>Thanks. What separates scientific papers from engineering papers?
it doesn't matter because he hasn't written either

>>12005034
I'm just asking. We already established that it was a test.

>>12005070
>hurr durr I'm just testing you
go fuck yourself retard

>>12005078
So you don't know. Okay. Noted. No need to be mad about that.

>this is the kind of thread sci discusses
lmao

>>12005008
>What separates scientific papers from engineering papers?
a scientific paper is a paper where the scientific method is used to answer a question

on the other hand an engineering paper is a paper that describes the best way to suck massive dick

im just gonna post crap

>>12005082
>this cringe lord
kys already faggot

>>12005084
>a scientific paper is a paper where the scientific method is used to answer a question
Okay, so engineers can write scientific papers. Anybody, really.

>>12005087
Stop samefagging. You're boring.

>>12005091
>Okay, so engineers can write scientific papers. Anybody, really.
has max hodak written any, I'm only asking this is a test to see if you pass

bla bla bla

>>12005091
>Stop samefagging. You're boring.
kys

>>12005102
See
>>12004729

>>12005109
so no

>>12005113
Congratulations. And?

14455

>>12005121
glad we agree he's not a scientist

12214545

>>12005132
??
That was already established here, slowpoke: >>12004964

>>12005141
we didn't establish shit retard you spouted a bunch of shit trying to claim a guy with an undergrad in engineering and 0 papers is somehow a scientist and not an engineer, which is /pol/ tier stupid

kys retard

>>12005171
Then why would I out myself as having lied? Why would I use a source and quote that in the very next few words says he worked on engineering stuff?
kek, you're really slow IRL.

>memespeak
You're boring. Thanks for playing though, you literal human fuckhole.

>>12005185
>why would I out myself as having lied?
because you're retarded?
>he worked on engineering stuff
are you a fucking mong? that's the point retard

>>12005194
>are you a fucking mong? that's the point retard
lol what now? You are truly slow in the head. You didn't understand shit here.
Well, last reply. You're really fucking boring.

>>12005212
it's hard to be more stupid than you are you're really seriously claiming this guy isn't an engineer when that is literally what he is and he describes himself as being one

fucking hell this convo is torture just fucking kys

>>12005224
>it's hard to be more stupid than you are
Well you did it. Not defending his shitposting, but he said that he agreed that Hodak was not a scientist based on the link he posted before and called you out on your spastic replies. Clever move, actually.

>>12004410
>OK, why not? Too kmuch feels?
As I said, discussing this concept cannot be done if the setting and the method look silly/creepy.
That would be like asking to take the concept of Matrix seriously if they fought using nerfgun, clothed as clown and the Matrix was using the people as power source instead of processing cor...oh wait.

>There is already case law that concluded AI cannot be an inventor
All it mean is that an human will call itself the inventor "helped by a very smart tool".

>Many things could cause the end of patenting.
One thing can negate all of those effortlessly: Inertia.
I'm not sure even martial laws and being at war with <insert OP dictatorship> would stop it. A capitalist country may stop to recognize other patents but they'll still enforce it inside their own.

>Isn't that just Gattaca?
Never watched the movie but the plot on wiki doesn't seem to match, like, at all.
Plenty of topic to address anyway, just have one the Main Chadracter and the other the Virgvillain.

I'm reading Musks biography currently, and he mentioned wanting a "collective enlightenment". Is neuralink a ploy to implement a hive mind?
He also likes Hitchhiker's Guide, where earth [SPOILER] is basically a computer. Is this his endgame?

>>11991956
YOU WILL GET THE CHIP
YOU WILL TAKE THE SHOT
YOU WILL EAT THE BUGS
YOU WILL GET IN THE CAGE

>>12005524
>that pic
whoever made that thank you.

>>12005368
>this shameless samefag

>>12006802
You have to quote two posts to samefag detect, newfag.

>>12006876
>his
>nonono you have to quote the post how in the sweet lords name could we tell whom'st'd've I'd be pretending not to be
pathetic

>>12006899
u mad son
>>12005368
>>12005212

>>12006910

>>12006912
as if that means anything dumbass

>>12006928
I'll be off now. Bye, Mr. Neuro"scientist".

>>12006933
not me shithead

>>12005524
>>OK, why not? Too kmuch feels?
>As I said, discussing this concept cannot be done if the setting and the method look silly/creepy.
You could say the same about Cyberpunk in the 80's. They projected a creepy future, and here we are. Not sure what you find silly, is it the early fetishism that disturb you?
>That would be like asking to take the concept of Matrix seriously if they fought using nerfgun, clothed as clown and the Matrix was using the people as power source instead of processing cor...oh wait.
Not really. Eudeamon sets out its premise and follows it through. Perhaps the author is too optimistic about humanity but that too is part of the premise.
>>There is already case law that concluded AI cannot be an inventor
>All it mean is that an human will call itself the inventor "helped by a very smart tool".
Probably, especially as there is a lot of money involves in relevant fields such as pharmaceuticals.
>>Many things could cause the end of patenting.
>One thing can negate all of those effortlessly: Inertia.
Not sure I understand you here, how can inertia bring about a change such as the end of patenting?
>I'm not sure even martial laws and being at war with <insert OP dictatorship> would stop it. A capitalist country may stop to recognize other patents but they'll still enforce it inside their own.
People have already thought about these things and there are laws about compulsory licensing and inventions of importance to national security.
>>Isn't that just Gattaca?
>Never watched the movie but the plot on wiki doesn't seem to match, like, at all.
You meme had things like "genes edited to perfection", "physical perfection" and more
>Plenty of topic to address anyway, just have one the Main Chadracter and the other the Virgvillain.
Go on?

>>12007158
Cyberpunk regroup a LOT of things. If we take Blade Runner as a reference, it made its points without driving away everyone (obviously it doesn't take much to drive away godfearer).
The big difference is that anything creepy doesn't last or represent the entire setting. I vaguely remember a book I read describing how biomodification allowed a pregnant woman to make her child visible and it was less creepy than Death Stranding right now and still less creepy than Eudeamon.
Only thing more creepy I can think of is "I have no mouth, and I must scream".

At best Eudeamon would go into horror story. It feel like "There's a creepy AI that 'win' over you and push you to create more like him like a self-replicating machine, eventually converting making all of mankind into faceless robot", not helped by how it rely on magic-level technology.

>Not sure I understand you here, how can inertia bring about a change such as the end of patenting?
I mean it NEGATE anything that would try to change and bring the end...etc. Keep it going even if there was good (but not enough) reasons to stop.
It would take a war for us to give up and it's not going to happen as long as MAD strategy persist. Some capitalist will consider ignoring patent to be as horrible as war.
They would scream "commies are coming to steal MY right to get every profit from this billions company and its IP."

>You meme had things like "genes edited to perfection", "physical perfection" and more
If we stop at superficial meme word and ignore the message or context we are not going very far.
In particular, the Chad meme claim "physical perfection" as if it existed within natural selection (tip: it doesn't).
GATTACA as far as I can tell from a summary, end with mind and psyche being more important than physical perfection.
So basically it's the opposite.

>>12006802
>>12006899
>>12006928
Imagine being this new. No, I'm not that guy. Here is how it works by the way:

>>12006899
>>12004729
>>12004576
Samefag

Now you post a Screenshot of this post so we can see you're not all the same people. It's that simple. Stop seething so much about bullshit. You've been outed and have zero damage control.

>>12007452
pic related shitlord, are you happy now?

I got into this thread because i saw that long post listing people working at Neuralink and got curious, then asked for more info on one of the guys who was claimed to be a scientist

then that other faggot started shitting all over himself when he got called on his bullshit because it turned out to be some stupid glorified mechanic and he the shitposter wouldn't relent so I returned the favour

>>12007253
We got a Crossboarder Cringe here folks.

>>11995375
What is to stop me from programming a virus that mindrapes everyone on the network at full stimulation and resolution until their batteries run out?

>>12007253
>Cyberpunk regroup a LOT of things. If we take Blade Runner as a reference, it made its points without driving away everyone (obviously it doesn't take much to drive away godfearer).
Blade Runner and Cyberpunk in general were controversial due to the dystopic aspects including eternal bad weather. With today's eyes it is just the way things are.
>and it was less creepy than Death Stranding right now and still less creepy than Eudeamon.
Did you read it through? It is an emotional rollercoaster if I may use the cliche, the mood of the story changes throughout. I think the author has a taste for revenge.
>At best Eudeamon would go into horror story. It feel like "There's a creepy AI that 'win' over you
In the early chapters, yes.
>and push you to create more like him like a self-replicating machine, eventually converting making all of mankind into faceless robot",
That I cannot remember.

>It would take a war for us to give up and it's not going to happen as long as MAD strategy persist. Some capitalist will consider ignoring patent to be as horrible as war.
>They would scream "commies are coming to steal MY right to get every profit from this billions company and its IP."
From my time in R&D it is hard to see a working alternative, and given the large number of international agreements and signatories (even NK and Iran signed the Paris Convention) it will be hard to abolish.

>If we stop at superficial meme word and ignore the message or context we are not going very far.
>In particular, the Chad meme claim "physical perfection" as if it existed within natural selection (tip: it doesn't).
In the world of GATTACA designed selection had made natural selection outdated.
>GATTACA as far as I can tell from a summary, end with mind and psyche being more important than physical perfection.
That was just about the protagonist, not the rest of that world.

>>12008900
Mostly that you have no idea how to do it.
And "full stimulation", what does this even mean?

>>12000021
Palindrome
Also I just wanna see what post got this:
>>12000000

TL;DR?

>>12009108
No such thing here. And read Eudeamon after you read the entire 300 earlier posts.

>>12008939
>were controversial due to the dystopic aspects including eternal bad weather.
If "eternal bad weather" was controversial to you, there's a gap between us that we will never cross.
Also don't confuse controversial and creepy.
Controversy happen when spectators do agree a story point "could happen" but disagree on "that way".
Creepy can happen when it doesn't feel possible and yet you are supposed to act as it is in setting, like turning people into faceless doll with AI overriding their senses under the control of "someone".

The frontier is thin and both can happen at the same time. I've seen other story with force mind-implant that punish you for thoughtcrime, I've seen human-AI fusion story, I've seen credible Paperclip Maximizer or Asimov robot exterminating alien.
Creepy is a mix.

>That I cannot remember.
And yet it's a logical and plausible interpretation of what happened. One accidentally grew an AI into a human who then brainwash it into wanting more AI. That AI may not actually be sentient and would result in a completely transformed mankind to be no longer capable of free agenda or curiosity.

>In the world of GATTACA designed selection had made natural selection outdated.
First, you missed my point. There's no perfect human because there is no definition for what an human "should be" (like white or black). There's no perfect DNA. Actually the ability to generate/cull genetic anomaly is integral part of what a species is.
Second, everything human do is still subject to natural selection.
If a genetically/biomechanical engineered species takeover/disappear, it will still be natural selection, something outside what can be controlled.

>That was just about the protagonist, not the rest of that world.
The fact it is proven wrong by any single individual, prove the rules the rest abide to are wrong (and unethical to begin with)

Did nobody see "Gamer" with Gerard Butler? How can Elon not see how dangerous this is?

>>11993149
reads exactly like fetish literature
fucking hilarious

>>12007484
lol you still don't get it, dumbass.
Life in stupidity must be wonderful.
The only one shitting himself here is you. Shall I quote all your cussing and raging? lmao

>>12007253
>Blade Runner
>cyberpunk
Pick one.

>>11991904
Could it help my tinnitus?

>>12010098
Depends on the reason for your tinnitus.

>>12009882
Fuck you dumb shit, you lost and started samefagging

>>12010098
All I care about as well

>>12010001
No.

>>12009265
>>were controversial due to the dystopic aspects including eternal bad weather.
>If "eternal bad weather" was controversial to you, there's a gap between us that we will never cross.
Could be, then again there was concern about the weather in the early 80's.

>Creepy can happen when it doesn't feel possible and yet you are supposed to act as it is in setting, like turning people into faceless doll with AI overriding their senses under the control of "someone".
That control was part of the premise and also did not work as expected by the proponents even.
>The frontier is thin and both can happen at the same time. I've seen other story with force mind-implant that punish you for thoughtcrime, I've seen human-AI fusion story, I've seen credible Paperclip Maximizer or Asimov robot exterminating alien.
Interesting, which ones are these?

>And yet it's a logical and plausible interpretation of what happened. One accidentally grew an AI into a human who then brainwash it into wanting more AI. That AI may not actually be sentient
That is one interpretation but fails before Occam's Razor.
>and would result in a completely transformed mankind to be no longer capable of free agenda or curiosity.
It was indeed pointed out that many banes were too self absorbed to help but that was not all of them.

>First, you missed my point. There's no perfect human because there is no definition for what an human "should be" (like white or black). There's no perfect DNA.
Nevertheless someone had made a definition.
>Second, everything human do is still subject to natural selection.
It strains the definition when genetic reviews came into play.

>The fact it is proven wrong by any single individual, prove the rules the rest abide to are wrong (and unethical to begin with)
"The majority is wrong" is a frequent trope. The individual did contrast society.

>>12010818
It's getting long so one last post.

>That control was part of the premise and also did not work as expected by the proponents even.
Doesn't make it less creepy they would even try.

>Interesting, which ones are these?
Can't remember the thoughtcrime one, but I do have recent webcomic about an AI who loath its built in safeguard (Freefall) and the story demonstrate AI controlled by human are more dangerous than free ones. It also address the creepy factor inherent to transhumanism.
Human-AI fusion: top of my head you can look up Ghost in the Shell (manga or 1st Oshii movie)
Paperclip maximizer: isn't hard to find, it's your typical grey goo scenario.
Asimov robot exterminating alien: well that's the conclusion of the Laws of Robotic. And the operating principle of "Berserker".

>That is one interpretation but fails before Occam's Razor.
Quite the opposite IMO. It is more simple to imagine that rogue AI subverting whoever they fused with into making more. Than to imagine "free thinking people" forgetting safety or their own survival and forcing anyone they don't have grievance against to "join with AI".
I did say that from a outside perspective. "Author said so" is often the main reasons it get creepy and/or controversial.

>Nevertheless someone had made a definition.
Imagine me brandishing a featherless biped.
We only have an arbitrary approximation. One of the people who have claimed to know what a "perfect" human was killed himself in a bunker the 30 April 1945.

>"The majority is wrong" is a frequent trope. The individual did contrast society.
Nevertheless, the existence of ONE "in-valids" being far more useful to mankind than their genetically-improved-baby demonstrate that choosing based on genetic alone is stupid. (and genetic discrimination is indeed in theory illegal in GATTACA)
You could bioengineer an human with more potential than average and still fail if mentally speaking you can't make it use that potential.

As said, that's my last post.

>>11991904
As long as it allows me to write without using a keyboard, to listen music without using headphones and to see without a screen for my computer I'm all in

>>11991904
One implant won't be enough for 'power users', so they'll get two, then three, etc, until their cranium is effectively replaced with Neuralink, upon which can be placed a supercomputer that includes a terabit nic.