Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AI_Enjoyer87 t1_ixdw9mn wrote

More competition means better BCIs more quickly. Good to hear.

193

[deleted] t1_ixg7ofy wrote

[deleted]

32

r0cket-b0i t1_ixgylhe wrote

Well .. I want to argue and offer the following two points:

1 - proposed solution uses optical nerve that already in place, it is a legit way for BCI when talking about vision (as in eyes)... invasive way would still end up replacing optic nerve and in that sense would be anyway more efficient.

2 - this idea of invasive is very silo / extrapolation of today's tech, what if in 20 years what we would end up actually using would be a bunch of nano machines that work in the brain and then send / receive signals as an interface, it would be completely different from Neurolink approach as well, we should not get fixated on invasive vs non invasive we should fixate on the quality of solution.

11

[deleted] t1_ixgzb7t wrote

[deleted]

7

r0cket-b0i t1_ixgzhf2 wrote

Yes and no, neurolink as a solution for blindness is a use a case, it's legit, but if this device offers similar resolution why do brain implant... I think that's what the title is about

4

RavenWolf1 t1_ixgmfk4 wrote

I agree fully. I can't believe that we can ever achieve something like Sword Art Online without non-invasive methods. Everything else is just waste of time.

6

monsieurpooh t1_ixibzmd wrote

What about OpenWater (which claims to have very high res non-invasive scanning technology but has yet to show their technology publicly)?

4

Shelfrock77 t1_ixgcqbj wrote

Hey jackass, these non invasive studies aren’t helping people with medical conditions or anything. Sometimes you need to start with “non invasive” to learn and integrate that intel into your actual invasive biohardware that can kill or torment your consciousness if the scientist is fucking stupid and lacks intel from previous computer labs. That money isn’t being wasted, it’s not only helping that company/team but the rest of the worlds scientist (AI too) to reflect back on that paper.

−20

pyriphlegeton t1_ixiedbu wrote

This seems to be a specific solution to cure some specific cases of blindness. Nothing more.

It's awesome if it works but it's not a product with the same intentions as neuralink. Neuralink intends to have a read/write-capability for large parts of the cortex, thereby influencing hearing, vision, speech, movement, etc. This can't do that.

3

RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_ixek2yo wrote

Not necessarily. It's taken as an axiom in Capitalism that you need competition to drive innovation and bring prices down for consumers. But it's not the competition doing that. It's the individuals in charge of those companies deciding to do those things. They could easily choose to do those things without competition forcing their hand but, generally speaking, companies are run by greedy psychopaths.

The leadership of Neuralink probably isn't in it strictly for the money. They want to be rich of course but they also understand the nature and implications of the Singularity as well as anyone in this subreddit.

Then there are the drawbacks of competition. The best minds are being scattered around. Venture capital is being split. Work is being duplicated. There are a lot of inefficiencies inherent in a market system.

−30

literalproblemsolver t1_ixfyyy2 wrote

I dont know how you can hold this opinion after thinking about it for even a few seconds.

No kidding the "people at the top" set the prices. If you mean it in the most literal, un-nuanced sense. The question you want to ask is "why?". As it turns out, the economy is far more complex than just corperate greed. Prices actually change based on many factors! Crazy thought i know.

8

Ahaigh9877 t1_ixge93g wrote

Nope, it’s evil Monopoly Man sitting on his massive pile of money. It’s simple. Goodies and baddies.

7

Ahaigh9877 t1_ixge0k7 wrote

> But it’s not the competition doing that. It’s the individuals in charge of those companies deciding to do those things.

What would it look like if it were competition doing that? How would it be different? And how do you know it’s not competition doing it?

In any case, it’s a false dichotomy man. The idea is that competition drives individuals to do those things. People need incentives and that’s one of them.

You can criticise “capitalism” for all sorts of things, and rightly so in many cases I’m sure. But the basic idea that competition can drive innovation surely isn’t total nonsense, is it?

7

AI_Enjoyer87 t1_ixemn5d wrote

The growth imperative is a capitalist foundation. A company cannot survive it isn't growing even if it is profitable. The nature of competition ensures this. If the leaders of companies pursue idealistic roads they will die. Grow or die is capitalism. All companies have to grow and make money or they will lose market share and die.

6

RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_ixenpp6 wrote

There are fuckloads of companies that have remained stable for centuries. I don't know where you got your perspective from but I suspect it was people pushing an agenda.

16

kmtrp t1_ixeufos wrote

Or just a fancy armchair at home.

5

div414 t1_ixg3sb1 wrote

Name 5 publicly traded companies that have remained stable in the last.. centuries?

4

literalproblemsolver t1_ixfz9j4 wrote

Businesses do not need to grow to survive. "Profitable" means making money, which means not losing money, which means staying open. If something is profitable, you dont need more growth to "stay alive". In many cases, blindly chasing growth kills more companies than helps them. Small businesses stay open for decades with proper leadership. Weird how they dont just die randomly after not being a multinational corp?

7