News Brain interface used to edit YouTube video — paralyzed Neuralink patient also uses AI to narrate with his own voice

[Admin]

Bradford Smith, an ALS patient, is the third patient to receive a Neuralink implant. This tech has allowed him to edit and upload a YouTube video, and even help him synthesize his voice using AI.

Brain interface used to edit YouTube video — paralyzed Neuralink patient also uses AI to narrate with his own voice : Read more

 

[Cainproton]

Incredible

 

[bit_user]

I always knew brain interfaces were going to be a game changer.

My concern about Neuralink is that they have a very poor track record with animal testing (I mean, not just the fact they do animal testing, which you can't really avoid for something like this, but rather the high "failure rate" among their animal test subjects), in their race to be first. If their human test subjects start to suffer similar fates, I think it's not going to be as easy to brush aside as the traffic deaths of people who misused Tesla's self-driving feature.

 

[KyaraM]

Now this is a use AI I can get behind with. But as bit_user said. Just hope that it won't end badly for the people using the device. I'm not a fan of animal testing, and this is one of the more horrific examples of it. It is something that needs especially high ethical standards, which clearly weren't applied.

 

[Heiro78]

I always knew brain interfaces were going to be a game changer.

My concern about Neuralink is that they have a very poor track record with animal testing (I mean, not just the fact they do animal testing, which you can't really avoid for something like this, but rather the high "failure rate" among their animal test subjects), in their race to be first. If their human test subjects start to suffer similar fates, I think it's not going to be as easy to brush aside as the traffic deaths of people who misused Tesla's self-driving feature.

Right there with ya on the animal and human testing. I think it's unlikely to happen with Neuralink, but one of the worst situations with the connected medical tech in this modern age of startups and investor mentality is product retention after company failures.

I have to look it up, but I learned of a woman who had an experimental device place in her head to help with some normally uncontrollable seizures. The device greatly improved her life to the point where she could live a relatively normal life. The company went out of business or bankrupt and out of an abundance of caution (liability), were requiring the removal of the devices. This woman distraught at the idea of returning to that life. To the point where she was willing to sign any an all waivers absolving the company of issues that arise from the device. This was years ago and I gotta find out what ended up happening.

It would be a tragedy if Neuralink implants went the same way or similarly, if an old device became obsolete and servicing it was no longer allowed/ permitted by the company.

 

[ingtar33]

I always knew brain interfaces were going to be a game changer.

My concern about Neuralink is that they have a very poor track record with animal testing (I mean, not just the fact they do animal testing, which you can't really avoid for something like this, but rather the high "failure rate" among their animal test subjects), in their race to be first. If their human test subjects start to suffer similar fates, I think it's not going to be as easy to brush aside as the traffic deaths of people who misused Tesla's self-driving feature.

i think the reason they're doing this with fully paraplegic people is because those are patients with no where to go but up. their life expectancy is not long. there isn't a long life ahead of someone fully paralyzed unless they have the money for full time care. due to the short life expectancy and the zero hope for a future normal life i think anyone in that situation would sign up for the risks willingly.

and the one think no one is talking about is this is the first step toward restoring function to spinal cord injured patients. either through actual bionics or through an interconnection past the damage in the spinal cord.

 

[bit_user]

It would be a tragedy if Neuralink implants went the same way or similarly, if an old device became obsolete and servicing it was no longer allowed/ permitted by the company.

Worse yet would be if you couldn't continue to afford the service fee, and they disabled it via software. It's not unlike what sometimes happens with prescription drugs.

 

[KyaraM]

i think the reason they're doing this with fully paraplegic people is because those are patients with no where to go but up. their life expectancy is not long. there isn't a long life ahead of someone fully paralyzed unless they have the money for full time care. due to the short life expectancy and the zero hope for a future normal life i think anyone in that situation would sign up for the risks willingly.

and the one think no one is talking about is this is the first step toward restoring function to spinal cord injured patients. either through actual bionics or through an interconnection past the damage in the spinal cord.

That makes it even more important to enforce strict ethics. Unless you see people like this as expendable I guess. The problem is that this can easily be a slippery slope, leading to certain people being labeled as expendable and, thus, appropriate subjects for experiments with high probability of death. Humanity has been there multiple time, we shouldn't go there again. Hence why I say this experiment needs an extra heap of ethics. I would also be careful with that "anyone", honestly; maybe many would do it, but there will always be those who won't.

And just to avoid misunderstandings, with "you" I don't mean you personally, or anyone here. But in a generalized way.

 

[bit_user]

i think the reason they're doing this with fully paraplegic people is because those are patients with no where to go but up. their life expectancy is not long.

Even if life expectancy is short, it's not regarded as a terminal illness. In medicine, the "do no harm" ethos should probably take precedence over anything unduly risky.

However, there are risks inherent in any medical procedure. So, as long as the positive outcome is far more likely than negative ones, and the patient is of sound mind and able to give informed consent, I think it's fine. You just can't use their life expectancy as an excuse to treat them differently than any other medical patient.

 

[ingtar33]

That makes it even more important to enforce strict ethics. Unless you see people like this as expendable I guess. The problem is that this can easily be a slippery slope, leading to certain people being labeled as expendable and, thus, appropriate subjects for experiments with high probability of death. Humanity has been there multiple time, we shouldn't go there again. Hence why I say this experiment needs an extra heap of ethics. I would also be careful with that "anyone", honestly; maybe many would do it, but there will always be those who won't.

And just to avoid misunderstandings, with "you" I don't mean you personally, or anyone here. But in a generalized way.

oh i agree. i think what i'm saying is it makes perfect sense to me why a paraplegic person would sign up for this. i know i would if i were in that situation. the idea that one day it might lead to being able to move my body again? or someone else? i would risk it in a heartbeat.

which is why its important they be extra careful. there is a degree of desperation and fatalism involved in the decision making of patients like that. meaning its on the doctors to make sure that this is safe enough to not harm them. because their tolerance for risk is quite high in a situation like that. sort of a "how can it get worse" type of thing.