A big red flag, according to researchers, is that Neuralink has barely been sharing any information at all.

• Concerns rise as Neuralink fails to provide evidence of brain implant success, raising safety and transparency questions.

• Controversy surrounds Neuralink’s lack of data on surgical capabilities and alarming treatment of monkeys with brain implants.

• While Neuralink touts achievements, experts question true innovation and highlight developments in other brain implant projects.

  • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
    1692·
    10 months ago

    Imo Musk is going to struggle in this space. He’s no stranger to opening companies in highly regulated industries, but the medical device industry is a whole different level. The government can easily prevent him from selling anything if his company isn’t forthcoming with data, and if he starts mutilating people, civil courts aren’t going to care if they signed a waiver if that waiver was signed based on false expectations built on incomplete or false data by the company

    • herrcaptain@lemmy.caEnglish
      119·
      10 months ago

      Plus, he likes to pretend he’s an expert on the industries of the companies he runs. That’s already potentially dangerous with Tesla and Space X, but in this case his hubris is very directly dangerous to the people receiving his services.

      • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
        691·
        10 months ago

        The difference is with Tesla and Space X he has actual experts doing the work, with Neuralink he gets the worst of the crop - no successful or ethical medical professional is going to want to work with him on this.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
        462·
        10 months ago

        Teslas are already directly dangerous to his customers but our society is numb to traffic violence so people don’t care as much as they should. But “full self-driving” has already killed people.

        Edit: removed “a lot” because while I suspect it is true, it remains unproven.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
            4·
            10 months ago

            Sure, that’s what I was referring to. But I’m realizing not everyone is as aware of the whole story here.

        • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeEnglish
          111·
          10 months ago

          “full self-driving” has already killed a lot of people.

          There’s only one death linked to FSD beta and even he was driving drunk.

          In a recent interview, Rossiter said he believes that von Ohain was using Full Self-Driving, which — if true — would make his death the first known fatality involving Tesla’s most advanced driver-assistance technology

          Von Ohain and Rossiter had been drinking, and an autopsy found that von Ohain died with a blood alcohol level of 0.26 — more than three times the legal limit

          Source

          However there’s approximately 40 accidents that have led to serious injury or death due to the use of the less advanced driver assist system “autopilot”.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
            9·
            10 months ago

            You’re right, I was conflating the two. However, I suspect there are more cases than just this one due to Tesla’s dishonesty and secrecy.

          • evatronic@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            (Why would the human’s inebriation level matter if the vehicle is moving autonomously?)

            • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              Agreed. Also while it’s impossible to say in any individual case I suspect people might be more likely to drive while inebriated if they believe the autopilot will be driving for them.

            • RedFox@infosec.pubEnglish
              21·
              10 months ago

              What if we compare that to human related injuries?

              I bet more people were killed by other human drivers today. Probably another right now…

              I’m not excusing lack of tech safety, but I think there’s a double standard not in context.

              • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
                2·
                10 months ago

                So I hear what you’re saying—what we really want to measure is deaths avoided versus those caused. But it’s a difficult thing to measure how many people the technology saved. So while I’m cognizant of this issue, I’m not sure how to get around that. That said, the article mentions that Tesla drivers are experiencing much higher rates of collisions than other manufacturers. There could be multiple factors at play here, but I suspect the autopilot (and especially Tesla’s misleading claims around it) is among them.

                Also, while there may be an unmeasured benefit in reducing collisions, there may also be an unmeasured cost in inducing more driving. This has not been widely discussed in this debate but I think it is a big problem with self-driving technology that only gets worse as the technology improves.

                • RedFox@infosec.pubEnglish
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  Yeah, I’m hoping though it progresses to the point that we can reasonably reduce vehicle related incidents.

                  Between drunk driving, texting, and generally not paying attention, I’d love more people using automated driving if it became statistically safer.

                  Some people are scared to fly even thought it’s statistically safer. They don’t want to be the rare happening. Unless Boeing, then check your doors…

                  Edit, I also agree you can’t easily track or correlate things that didn’t happen with all the factors here.

        • Tyfud@lemmy.worldEnglish
          20·
          10 months ago

          She exploited and got rich off rich people though, like SBF, so she went down. Musk exploited and got rich off the working class and apartheid exploitation in SA. So that’s ok. He’s one of them.