315
Elon Musk’s Neuralink reports trouble with first human brain chip
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
315 points (95.1% liked)
Technology
54748 readers
4818 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 11 months ago
MODERATORS
When a computer reads some signal, the 0s and 1s in it's memory is the data. The data must be processed so that the computer can understand it.
This computer is using threads to read neuron activity. It must necessarily receive data because if it didn't it wouldn't be reading neuron activity. They're the same thing.
This data is processed so that the computer can make sense of the brain. Once it understands some activity it generates signals that can control external devices.
Here's an example. Imagine a device that monitors the heart and does something to fix a problem. The device would get data on the heart and process the data so that it can perform it's function.
Wouldn't monitoring health concerns and mitigating data loss be extremely important in these scenarios?
The point is that this is the opening paragraph about something going wrong in human brain surgery, and the first thing they tell us is "don't worry, the data's fine", rather than anything about the human. Indeed, you have to read to the last paragraph to find:
I do agree it would have been significantly more considerate to mention that the person is ok first, but I feel like you're confusing data storage (ie something they're collecting) with data processing (ie how the device operates). The data in question is the latter. In other words, they are explaining that the problems are being accounted for so that the device can still function in the human it's attached to.
No, I understood that, I did read the article. I'm lambasting the fact that in an article about "brain chip gone wrong", burying the "but human seems to be unharmed" at the end of an article is indicative of a set of priorities wildly different from my own.