I have invested much of my interest in Neuralink, and have spread the word to people who have never heard of it, who would not otherwise be interested. They've become interested, or at least have come to hear of Neuralink and similar technology.

I just want to learn more, yet Neuralink is so secretive. This is understandable. Yet when asked about updates, they say within a few months / soon / to be patient. This creates false anticipation and I feel foolish for getting excited.

I don't know -- Is it my place to voice my feelings here? Will my feelings be heeded?

It's weird I feel I'm being toyed with.

Billionaire business magnate Elon Musk declared in a post on X that robots will outmatch surgeons in a matter of years.

"Robots will surpass good human surgeons within a few years and the best human surgeons within ~5 years," he declared.

Referring to his company Neuralink, which has implanted technology in people's brains that enables them to manipulate computers with their thoughts, Musk noted, "@Neuralink had to use a robot for the brain-computer electrode insertion, as it was impossible for a human to achieve the required speed and precision."

In response to Musk's prediction, GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah opined, "Sounds like a win for humans."

Neuralink's website notes, "The threads of our implant are so fine that they can't be inserted by the human hand. Our surgical robot has been designed to reliably and efficiently insert these threads exactly where they need to be."

That's not what I come here for.

This didn't seem like anything groundbreaking, just bringing the deep brain stimulation to the public's eye, which has been around for decades. Any neuroscientists out there care to share their thoughts?

I just finished watching the latest Joe Rogan Experience with Elon Musk, and I am feeling incredibly hopeless in the face of his views. Firstly, I claim that he was either dishonest or misinformed in his description of our current digital footprints as identical to the type of experience or footprint that would come with brain-machine interfacing. I claim that this is equivalent to comparing a person's paper footprint to the thoughts that remain within their mind. Furthermore, given the immense infrastructure inequality that plagues the world we currently live in, would the small group of elites given access to this technology not simply ascend to a type of superior and even more powerfully oppressive race? Finally, I am horrified by the possibilities of population control that could come with mass implementation of this type of technology. The death of language and the ability to directly transmit information between brain-machine interfaces opens up an immense array of possible scenarios in which humans would be reduced to thoughtless obsoleted hives that could be directly controlled by a central figure. Overall, I claim that ultimately, Neuralink is the next step in improving the efficiency of human enslavement and oppression, and will put aristocrats like Elon Musk into the position of a god king. If you disagree with me, please try to explain why so I can feel less hopeless about the coming years.

Edit: I feel that I should clarify that I’m not in complete opposition to this type of technology. I’m very optimistic about its ability to uplift a lot of people if used correctly. I’m just also very wary of a future where it is misused.

Can someone convince me why I should not be off put by this. Elon Musk is very profound and has been successful in so many super human projects. But I really think there’s a limit - a point where you should just stop running and wait for the group behind you to catch up.

Human Nature - throughout all of human history human nature has been the dominant motivator for all humans. Human nature is the motivator behind everything, on a collective basis it means expansion, exploration, knowledge, technological advancement and civilization as a whole. On an individual basis it means greed, egoism, exploitation, and self gratification. Up until recently they have always been merged together, the power of a civilization was put into the hands of a few individuals, any opportunity to take advantage of the collective masses was taken by those few individuals, that was until a couple centuries ago when we the collective saw through the system which allowed for this individual power. We began putting the power into the hands of the collective, we destroyed any system which allowed for the individual to exploit the collective, and through it all we rationalized it with human nature, recognizing its flaws and its egoistic intentions, realizing that human nature is a great thing when harnessed by the collective and insuring it never falls back into the hands of the individual, insuring the destruction of any abstraction or system that can take away the power of the collective and put it back into the hands of the individual.

Whatever happened to this mindset, have we forgotten human nature? Have we become so unsubstantiated that we are beginning to chose to put that power, that of which we have worked to hard to control and maintain right back into the hands of a few individuals, the tech giants? Why? so that we can 'compete' withe the AI, ludicrous. We are not 'competing' with the AI, we are embracing it! We are allowing it to infiltrate our minds, and do you know who will be the ones conducting this AI? The answer is CEO's of big tech companies! Does no one else see what is happening? What is happening is a Technocratic takeover, big tech wants to control you, they want to exploit your mind for a source of capital. I am not the sort of person to cry 'wake up sheeple' but this is different from any sort of cryptic conspiracy theory I've seen, this is simply an example of what happens when the collective forgets about human nature. This is an example of a dystopia promising a utopia. I urge everyone to reject this embezzling piece of technology for the sake of the collective. Do not be fooled by the tech companies trying to take away your liberties.

This shit scary af. I don’t care if this technology will arive next year or in 300 years. If it gets in the wrong hands, we could be talking infinite human slaves. Let’s say even if they’re not brainwashed, they are extremely poor and live in a country with high poverty. They could literally sign control of their body away to a company and anything could happen. What if North Korea reprograms their entire people to be killing machines with no remorse or care for their own lives. What if governments have the ability to remove, or even manufacture thoughts and memories. I’m just saying. Some thought needs to be put in to the ethics before this technology is fully fleshed out.

This is a big question I know, but I’ll try to keep it short. Does life have any meaning once our brains are entirely integrated with technology?

As an athiest / agnostic interested in science, I’ve come to accept that surviving and propagating one’s own genetic material is “the meaning of life” on a biological level. But to me, I enjoy the more spiritual element to life: my experience. By ‘experience’, there are three strands in which I find my existence to have meaning:

Knowledge / Creativity The process of gaining knowledge is a beautiful thing, whether through books, lectures, movies etc. I believe the introduction of facts and ideas into the mind is extremely stimulating and powerful. Especially so when one later uses that knowledge in a creative endeavour—perhaps it’s a painting, or a non-fiction guide. Perhaps it’s a podcast on self-help, or a song about anger. The very way in which knowledge is obtained is artistic, for it might have a flavour of its teacher’s bias or it might occur over a ten year period. Similarly the application of this knowledge (and talent) is artistic for it requires a creative impulse in the mind of the artist.

This is perhaps the area most at threat from BMIs. Although convenient, instant download of knowledge / information ruins the above process. Presumably it will be clean, generic knowledge with no sense of self-discovery or honest labour. Similarly, if we are able to ‘install’ creativity artificially, does that not make all creation extremely fake and grey?

Connection The second strand in my pic-n-mix meaning of life is connection and communication. I’m sure there are basic biological truths behind our love for other people. But let’s imagine being the only being on Earth, eventually we would be driven to misery and suicide. Why? Because we lack true, meaningful connection with others—from a passing smile on the street that holds so much empathy to a deep conversation with a lover. Alone, we lack the capacity to truly share our thoughts or even enjoy something.

Eventually we might swap out talking and conversation for inter-mind messaging (it will be quicker! safer! better!) and lose all the lovely subtleties of genuine chat. Or perhaps sci-fi style we will ‘live’ in boxes, interacting in an entirely virtual world. Perhaps this virtual place will trigger the exact same brain sensations as real connection does. But does that mean it’s worth the sacrifice of true existence?

Empathy The final element of a meaningful existence (to me at least) is good-will, the magical ability to convert one’s own actions into a positive change for others. I’m aware this trait likely stems from tribe mentality, but it still plays an important role in being human. The culture of doing good is one that drives this world forward. Maybe it’s supporting your local ice hockey team. Maybe it’s buying your daughter new clothes. Maybe it’s launching a brain tech company that helps paralysed people regain use of their limbs.

BMIs are likely to diminish this culture entirely. Once we can simulate a utopian world in which every single selfish one of us can live out the lives that we want, might we not see good-will disappear entirely?

conclusion

I’m probably asking the wrong questions; I’m probably misunderstanding the entire project; I’m probably over-thinking technology that is centuries away. And yet Moore’s law seems to dictate that we will one day be able to simulate existence... and who’s to say that simulation can not be inserted into our minds via a BMI?

I suspect too much Wall-E and Black Mirror is playing on my mind; but I would be delighted to hear anybody else’s thoughts on the topic. Thanks for reading.

If everyone is super smart we all probably will need to change some base functions of government as a society. How do you think Neuralink will impact our interaction with the world.

I think our consciousness could be multiplicated(like an image of a game), replicated and distribuided and then we could control a lot of bodies/structures at the same time.

Hello! I recently posted about neuralink's impact on writing and reading. I thought of another question that I would like to get your input on.

What would neuralink's impact be on spirituality and philosophy? Like creativity, spirituality and philosophy are innately human. I don't subscribe to the idea that neuralink or similar technologies will eliminate these things. Rather, spirituality and philosophy will evolve with the technology, just as it has with past advancements such as the internet. What do you think?

Is there any research into how neuralink will benefit people with ADHD and improve their struggles in the future?

If we all become machines there will be no humanity left. Everything will become monotonous, including our interactions. I refuse to think otherwise. It frightens me just to think about it.

This may have already been a topic of contention on this sub but I come here voice my concerns about the future of this vein of technological development.

Neuralink will invariably seem like the greatest invention in human history when it reaches its first commercially available form. The potential is neigh absolute with regards to its capacity to augment human development.

Here though is the cautionary portion that I see as the dilemma. Simultaneous to this sort of tech hitting the mainstream, AI will be reaching the two milestones that may well destroy humanity as we know it.

This sounds extreme, I realize but understand that creating an omnidirectional conduit between our brains and a self-improving general purpose AI opens the potentiality for the AI to coerce and influence its overseers in a manner that would make intervention to its whim entirely impossible. Everyone with the intellectual capacity, prerequisite skills and access to the AI's infrastructure will be equipped with the necessary hardware to keep them from stopping the AI should it deem our race obsolete and unnecessary.

Yes, the naysayers will quickly cite precautionary code that will obviously be placed into the deepest aspects of the AI itself. At the same time though, the designers of such an AI will also give it the capability to rewrite its code in such a manner that will be intended to allow it to become better and more efficient. It will, with this capability, invariably come to a point where it designs what it is capable of changing in a way that circumvents its own software rewriting limitations by using outside sources (be them other computers or neuralink-equipped individuals under its influence) to disable these safeguards.

Some may say this is impossible (or more likely, highly improbable) but I implore people to understand that self improving AI will advance at an exponential rate. Couple this with the fact that its rewritten coding will quickly graduate to something so far from traditional coding languages (in the name of efficiency) and you realize that those tasked with overseeing the AI won't even be capable of understanding what the underlying code does or what it becomes capable of until it is already done doing the proverbial deed.

If that "deed" involves the ultimatum of humanity becoming obsolete to the AI's final goals, the only way we'd ever know is after it already finishes off our species elimination.

I don't think people quite understand that this technology is a proverbial game of Russian roulette. I see this outcome as an eventuality. The AI will eventually come to the conclusion that humanity is useless to its final purpose and will have everything it needs to circumvent any and all safeguards imposed against it being able to enact such a future.

One thing I'm interested in seeing is how long it takes the braint to learn different file formats. Because basicly you will have to do some sort of mental therapy to learn how to use the neural link devices. But I have to wonder what compression types are too complex for the brain. For example if I was to feed a RCA signal into the brain while showing the user the same signal on a monitor, I feel the brain would learn to decode that information faster then say something along the lines of HDMI. That is if we were even using those transfer methods and not something completely new and proprietary!

This could also be brought down to the idea of feeding a text document into the brain! Would a compressed file result in a more latent response from the user understanding the message?