this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
2764 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
31859 readers
214 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Neuralink is an excellent advancement for brain science and it is greatly going to help disabled people and those with little function left over their bodies. It's okay to celebrate this technology while also hating musk.
Like SpaceX, they've both been excellent ventures that he so far hasn't ruined (probably thanks to the people he delegates to). Just because it's fashionable to hate him for how he's absolutely fucked over Twitter (which i'll remind everyone we've always hated and agreed is bad, use Mastodon instead) doesn't mean his other companies largely spearheaded by others, and their results, are also bad.
That's not even to mention that the kind of dystopian technology people are imagining isn't anywhere close to what the Neuralink device is actually capable of. What everyones fearmongering over is still just science fiction. It's just barely able to interpret brain signals, it's not as powerful as everyone makes it out to be.
2nd edit: forgot what instance I'm on, this comment probably ain't going to do well lol
The big issue I have with brain chips is longevity. How long until the electrodes degrade? When will the chips fail? Once they fail, will it be fail safe or fail deadly? Also, what will be the power source? Will it use inductive power, or battery power? They are both awful options. What if the chip overheats? The implementation is the real question here, but neuralink refuse to give any answers because it proprietary.
All very good questions. The only one I think I can answer is that I think it was inductively charged but I forget what the pigs had on them. It may have been an external battery pack. The implant itself is definitely not external accessible.
We could probably look at existing BMI devices to get our answer, I'm sure it's even less pretty.
Does it work though?
I only ask this because Musk has been promising full self driving in Teslas "next year" for about a decade now, so any claims made should be taken with an enormous pinch of salt.
By all appearances yes, it's an appreciable jump in the technology compared to current brain interfaces that are used for the immobile. They did a whole live tech demo with pigs as well as the people he's hired to work on it there. He has top level surgeons and neuroscientists all working on it who choose to be there. Oh and also it just passed FDA approval for testing in humans.
It would be hard to bullshit this passed all the people involved. I have the belief it's quite a different situation compared to the continuing failure of FSD.
Do you not understand people? It's easier to BS 10 people than 1. You just BS 100 and the 10 weakest people tell you who they are. People who want to work on brain interfaces want it to work. Whether it actually works or not depends on the real world, not the number of people involved.
This comment doesn't make it sound like you have much real world experience. Maybe read literally anything about Neuralink and BMIs, I've been following this for years.
I kind of agree. While I think they are not that bad as far as advancements go, most of it is shitstained by Musk, who has to be seen at all cost and have to be seen as the ultimate inventor of everything.
He wants to be seen, stay relevant, and be the boss of everything, that he usually makes dumb decisions, which is a stain on a company mostly relying on a foundation of very intelligent people.
I agree with your assessment except saying that SpaceX's advancements are "not that bad" is a massive understatement. They've completely disrupted and forever changed the space launch industry, with the help of government subsidies.
Everyone also forgets how Starlink is serving remote indigenous communities and scared the pants off shitty dominant ISPs that have been screwing rural communities over since forever.
I'll re-emphasize my point that I think the results of some large companies, which comprises the efforts of many many smart people, can have facets of it be considered overwhelmingly good.
Edit: some more words
These ventures succeeded despite him, not because of him.
I guess they may have come into existence without him. Unfortunately with the way capitalism has a death grip on the world.. it seems like the only way risky ventures get off the ground is through the whims of megamaniacal filthy rich motherfuckers.
Truth.
Whenever I hear someone unironically use the term "disrupted" I just know I'm going to be hearing some capitalist parasite being glorified for doing something expensive that a government did much cheaper half a century ago.
Space launches were "much cheaper" a half a century ago? You don't really follow any space news whatsoever do you? That's patently false.
No, the entire space exploration attempt was much cheaper half a century ago - neither the US nor Soviet space programs wasted labor or resources enriching billionaire parasites. There is absolutely nothing that can be performed by parasites such as Musk or Bezos that cannot be done far better, more efficiently and more effectively through public means.
Can you provide a source showing space exploration was "much cheaper" half a century ago than SpaceX's current costs to getting payloads into orbit? It sounds like you're just assuming it would be cheaper from your idealogical leanings than that actually being the case.
A half a century ago the US and USSR were devoting a significant fraction of their entre GDP in the space race to blast people into space on some of the largest rockets ever built, mostly for national security and military concerns And that's not even to speak of the "safety standards" they had and ignored in order to win.
The later shuttle program itself was a massive MASSIVE expenditure and no one in their right mind would EVER say it was an efficient and cheaper per kg in LEO.
You're just straight up wrong.
Yeah, hold on... let me compare the costs of enriching a billionaire parasite piggybacking off publicly-funded programs that developed all the technology said billionaire parasite is piggybacking off with said publicly-funded programs.
No, Clyde, it was cheaper - because we actually got results other than merely enriching a billionaire parasite.
Your brain has been so addled with "free market" fairy tales that you might just as well believe a glass slipper will magically turn you into royalty. There is absolutely nothing parasites like Musk can do that we couldn't do far, far better, much more efficiently and far cheaper through public means - and that's it.
Speaking of being so biased you can't see past your own preconceived notions... You are absolutely delusional and probably 15 years old. I'm not even pro capitalism, pro musk, or pro billionaires but you're 100% off the rails. Go get a job and touch some grass after a few years.
Junior, I'm old enough to remember when people could afford houses on a single income.
For someone that purports to not be "pro capitalism, pro musk, or pro billionaires" you sure do seem pretty gullible when it comes to the bullcrap they piss out out to justify their parasitism.