this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
398 points (92.5% liked)
Technology
60085 readers
4760 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're presupposing that surgical implants can't be more responsive, intuitive, speedy, or sophisticated than an external device. The eye trackers are very useful but objectively pretty limited. Non-invasive EEG is weak and distorted because there is skull and more brain in the way, so "resolution" is limited.
If better outcomes are possible by putting electrodes as close to the signal source as can be, why not explore that option?
It feels ridiculous that I even need to say this, but you don’t do it because the risk:benefit ratio is lopsided as hell.
Risks: die from sepsis, have your body reject the implant, the parent company goes out of business and your implant no longer functions (this has happened with several startups), etc
Benefit: move mouse and click faster
Move mouse and click faster is a big deal when it's the only way you can interact with the world. And it's just a mouse right now, but what about robotic hands? A thought-controlled wheelchair? A tiny bit of agency? Technology is iterative and built on failure, and you want to tell the people trapped in non-functional bodies that it will never get any better?
I feel like I’m doing nothing but repeating this: the only way to do that is not with an implant! It’s not implant or nothing!
Right now it is not those things, and I’m going to need you to step way the fuck back since your starting premise is that I’m not physically disabled and have no loved ones that are or could benefit from safe, effective adaptive technology. Maybe if it was your cousin or sister you’d have a little more concern about just tossing them into a meat grinder because some tech bro thinks “go fast, break things” is a policy that can and should be translated to human health.
I do not and will not accept disabled people being sacrificed in the name of progress. They can’t even do this shit in fucking monkeys, bro. Come on.
It's experimental tech, I wouldn't want to be the Guinea pig either.
However, if I was quadriplegic and could only use the somewhat limited external tech, and a significant portion of my life was interacting with a computer. Fuck yeah the risk is worth a performance boost. Especially considering this is going to be a lot safer and more powerful when it hits the mass market
There is no such thing as an implant or surgery with no risk of sepsis or rejection. The risk may be low in young, healthy patients (ie, not people who are quadriplegic because that leads to many other health concerns with surgeries), but it’s never zero.
If you’re cool with risking that, okay, that’s your body. Personally I want to live.
I never said it was, and for some people it will be worth it.
I'm not going to get Elon's stupid chip, I'm just saying it's not as one sided as you say