Brain-Machine Interface Technology (Neuralink, BrainGate)

I'm sure someone would create an adblock feature for this thing eventually. Or in a worst-case scenario... just turn off the wi-fi.

Edited by Corvidae on Jul 23rd 2019 at 11:27:59 AM

That all still depends on its ability to send information back into the brain, which I doubt it can unless they've said otherwise. If it can't, worst-case-scenario it might be a mind reading device. Even that's not too big a thing to be worried about for a few reasons. The device is probably only designed to scan small parts of the brain. Also, your brain is incredibly complex and therefore kind of hard to read.

If it can, then you definitely have something potentially very dangerous here. Mind control would be difficult for similar reasons as mind-reading, though-there's so many levers it would be incredibly difficult for a machine to know which ones to pull.

Nonetheless, I do think we're gonna need some legislation on this. I wouldn't be too worried about mind control or mind-reading overall, though I can say that having technology with an internet connection in your brain is somewhat intrinsically dangerous if you're not careful.

The types of "hacks" I'd be most worried about are more along these lines:

1. Turning the individual into a "virus carrier". For example, putting a computer virus on someone's neuralink so that their neuralink attempts to hack any machines nearby that individual.

2. Shutting the device off, or causing it to intentionally misread a person's brainwaves. For example, making it so a robotic arm moves down when you want it to move left.

3. A combination of 1 and 2: Causing it to send another individual's brainwaves to a machine.

4. Hacking machines that rely on neuralinks. If a machine requires a radio signal from a neuralink to work, it can be controlled by other radio signals.

5. The worst I can think of would be if someone can cause physical damage to the neuralink with software. For example, if they can make the neuralink's battery explode inside your skull.

It doesn't even need to go as far as exploding, a few degrees of overheating (which the chip itself may be able to weather) may already do damage in the brain.

Agreed. To be fair, I can think of ways around this to some extent. The fear's more the companies cutting corners and not putting such features in until it's too late. Or heck, even just being so enthusiastic to release their new invention that important safety features slip their mind.

Tech companies have in the past made pretty big blunders like releasing exploding phones or making it mechanically possible for their laptop webcam to be on without the safety light being on (even though it shouldn't be hard to make that mechanically impossible). Though, also to be fair, it should be noted that once you're making cybernetics you're honestly closer to a pharmaceutical than a tech company. There is legal precedents here.

Personally, what I'd suggest is putting a mechanical off-switch on the neuralink. Worse comes to worse, you can just shut it off. Also, it might be possible to create a version of the neuralink that isn't an implant-something like a headband being worn that scans their noggin externally. That's what would persuade me to get one of these.

Granted, that would mean walking around in public with an awkward looking headband. Among other issues.

It could be the Google Glass thing all over again.

A couple of things about Neuralink specifically, related to the above...

• The chip isn't mounted in the brain; it's in the skull: specifically, in the surgical gap used by the robot to install the electrodes. "Heating it up", however you accomplish that, wouldn't be able to cause much harm. I doubt it even has the ability to overheat given its low power consumption. You can't hack something to do more than its hardware allows.
• The chip is designed to turn completely off: powered down, no input or output, when it does not have a Bluetooth connection.

I would assume there is a manual power switch on the external receiver, along with a charging port, but that's not a detail that was shared during the livestream.

A hacker might be able to ruin the chip, but could not cause any serious damage to the user.

In the future, who knows? Once this thing starts being able to write data back to the brain, I'm quite sure that security will be at the forefront of the developers' concerns.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 23rd 2019 at 10:21:17 AM

Imagining the neuralink as a headband (heck, hearing of neuralink, period) immediately brought Big Hero 6 and the nanobots to my mind, to be honest.

@M84 That always frustrated me slightly. What's the point of living in the future if you can't get away with wearing a techno-visor?

It's one of those things that seems cool in sci-fi stories but in real life either turns out to be not so cool after all or massively inconvenient or impractical or downright dangerous.

Edited by M84 on Jul 24th 2019 at 1:14:41 AM

I probably should have put that in joking-mode, though it was only mostly joking.

About trusting legislation surrounding surgical implants more than that in the case, for example, of toys... Don't.

Google "pelvic mesh" sometime.

The medical sector plays fast and loose all the damn time by almost relying on companies to take medical oathes seriously, rather than using properly enforced investigative committees and rigorous licensing systems. Note: the boards and directors of these companies are very unlikely to have medical degrees, let alone care about any version of the Hippocratic oath.

The whole sector is rife with fraud, and has been for decades. The hazy laws as well as the difficulty for affected people to seek redress have only helped this.

The damned loophole that any device fundamentally based on tried-and-true tech going back to the early- to mid-C20th can be passed through with minimal hassle is crippling and killing people. Because, by now... That chain of grandfather tech is getting ridiculously flimsy. But, it's lawful.

Don't look now, but the tried and true existence of pacemakers will be used as a get out of being rigorously tested card for most of these chips. Without the lawyers even breaking a sweat; they've had practice spinning just how like the old the new-and-dangerously-untried actually is.

Seriously; transvaginal/pelvic mesh/sleeves is just one of the horrors going on every day.

Toys are better regulated than surgical implants. No exaggeration.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jul 24th 2019 at 8:58:15 PM

I feel like you're conflating some issues here. Whether or not the medical device industry as a whole is regulated in a responsible manner does not have a direct relationship to whether any particular device is beneficial (or life-saving). Nobody (in this topic at least) is saying we should not improve regulations to deal with some of the abuses you mention.

However, that problem should also not stop new medical devices from being developed and brought to market, nor does it mean that any particular device will not be safe and effective.

I wasn't saying that, either.

I was saying that while we're in the buyer beware stages of this... we need to be very wary.

And squint at steps forward very carefully. Because legislators have yet to catch up.

When the video games gambling bubble bursts, watch where some of the top players wind up with their parachutes. It's likely to be this segment of the medical sector.

Because of the already endemic issues.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jul 24th 2019 at 4:59:17 PM

You and I as individual consumers have very little say in these matters. There's no effective way to boycott medical devices; the best we can do is elect politicians who will produce effective regulation and actively communicate our concerns to them.

Well, we can also conduct viral social media campaigns against companies who cause problems by stretching the rules. As disdainful as I generally am of Facebook and Twitter crusades, for some reason they seem to actually work a lot of the time. I suppose public shame is a more powerful motivator for businesses than I would have expected.

There's many layers of worry associated with something like this. The device appears to be aimed at people who have far more to gain than to lose by experimenting with this (people with severe brain dysfunctions). But even they have to be wary of unknown side effects and parts suppliers with a profit motive. Beyond them, the general public could be at risk if vulnerable people agree to be implanted for financial reasons (much the way you almost have to have internet access today just to get a part time retail job). That scenario is rife with unwanted advertising and persuasion tactics. Nothing so crude as mind-control, much less the comprehensive reading and manipulation of an entire brain, which is probably impossible. All they need is permission to pleasure you when you make certain purchasing, or voting, decisions. Basically Facebook in your brain.

There are Republican legislators who would be more than comfortable with this.

One of my relatives has a DBS implant to manage their Parkinson's disease. These can be life-changing devices. Many people are willing to take the risk.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 24th 2019 at 4:38:47 AM

That makes perfect sense, so would I, were I them. I would still be worried about these other issues, though.

Neuralink fluff promo video. Very cool and inspiring. Go apply for a job!

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 26th 2019 at 10:58:23 AM

From Forbes:

Neuralink Needs Careful Consideration, Not Hasty Commercialization

Bottom line: being too enthusiastic about this and going full steam ahead would be a serious mistake.

Edited by M84 on Jul 26th 2019 at 11:02:21 PM

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the AI voice in my head, telling me all your personal information. I'm first in line for the Cybermen factory, baby!

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 26th 2019 at 11:16:30 AM

It wouldn't be anywhere near as dramatic as that. Nah, it'd probably be far more mundane horror like being influenced to buy more Tesla products or something. Which wouldn't be that hard honestly if one is already the kind of person eager to buy a Neuralink and be a human guinea pig.

Edited by M84 on Jul 26th 2019 at 11:21:29 PM

I already want a Tesla, and I don't have a chip in my brain. I'm what you call an easy sell, when I see a fantastic product with a massive social benefit attached.

In reality, I can't afford that car right now, although that may not be the case in the next few years, and Neuralink won't be entering the consumer market for many years yet. So there's no need to worry.

More to the point, I trust Elon Musk and his company not to turn into an evil mastermind with his MegaCorp running the world as a dystopia, at least not until they get an order of magnitude bigger. Hell, I trust Tesla and Neuralink a lot more than I trust GM or Facebook.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 26th 2019 at 11:33:18 AM

It's pretty easy to legislate around that, though: simply don't let the machine be wired to the pleasure center of the brain. And in fact, I'm not sure why it would be to begin with.

Well, that's a different matter. The "pleasure center of the brain" is a bit of a pop culture myth. A distributed system of synaptic electrodes could alter the brain's neurotransmitter balance, literally changing your mood in very subtle ways. You wouldn't suddenly have an orgasm, or become deliriously happy when you see Cheetos.

Rather, such a system could have affects on your level of alertness, attention, and general sense of fulfillment and satisfaction. Consider that many mental disorders, like depression, are related to problems with neurotransmitter production, reception, or uptake. Neuralink or devices like it could fix those problems at the source, rather than via drugs.

And yes, they could be used to stimulate mood changes to get you to develop positive or negative associations with products or services, like the ultimate subliminal advertising. It wouldn't be as overt as, "I'm hungry, all of a sudden I want Taco Bell." At least not for several generations of the product, hopefully.

Frankly, long before it's marketed direct to consumers, I envision this gaining significant value in psychological treatments. Let's say you're deathly afraid of the outdoors. Get an implant and have it teach your brain to reassociate the experience of open spaces with a good mood. It could be life changing.

Is it reasonable to be concerned about the potential for abuse? Yes. Is it going to magically be less of a concern over time? No. Technology is like the genie, or Pandora's Box. Once opened or set free, you can't put it back. If Neuralink doesn't do it, someone else will, and maybe not as altruistically.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 26th 2019 at 11:53:09 AM

I do not trust Tesla any more or less than I do any other SV corporation. And I hope someone else gets on this BMI thing. Gotta have competition in the market. Expecting a corporation to be altruistic is a mistake.