
Bryan Johnson invests $100M in Kernel to unlock the power of the human brain - sethbannon
https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/20/bryan-johnson-invests-100-million-in-kernel-to-unlock-the-power-of-the-human-brain/?hn
======
tristanho
The negativity in these comments is astounding.

Here's someone who's investing his _own_ hard-earned money into a "device
aimed at reducing cognitive deficiencies for sufferers of conditions like
Alzheimer’s and dementia." And all anyone can do is complain that it's
infeasible or that he's unqualified. I don't know about you, but I want _more_
people working on these problems, not less.

Seems very reminiscent of when Musk was starting SpaceX and everyone assumed
he didn't know anything about the domain and would automatically fail.

~~~
voidz
True. I blame it on a trend of the 2010s: friendly people who would otherwise
write moderate and/or optimistic comments a decade ago, have increasingly lost
motivation to partake. This is my theory at least, I can't back it up
scientifically or any of that. The causes and/or reasons are that many of
those people may have become parents (myself included), or have grown tired of
the negativity, or frustrated by the Orwellian developments. We all know the
most obvious example on HN: leave a well intended comment and get at least one
cynical or even suffocating response that doesn't even get downvoted properly.
It gets tiring really fast. Fast forward a couple of years, and most of what's
left is enforced so-called constructivism, hyperextreme political correctness,
cynisism and depression.

The glory days are over, I think, and I strongly doubt that future generations
will keep using the Internet for social interaction.

~~~
zajd
It also could have something to do with the socioeconomic landscape where a
vast majority of individuals simply don't have the means or ability to
contribute or even participate.

~~~
voidz
Sure, can't rule it out. But I'd say you're pointing out a different (though
in and of itself legitimate) problem than the problem of hostility in the
sphere which many of us from the 70s and 80s grew up and old(ish) in.

To be honest with you, if I just look at how those people in my very well
developed country (with the Internet being ubiquitous, and being poor
generally means receiving minimal benefits as opposed to having no money or
place to live) behave who still do partake in the public discourse, I'd say
that the problem is more with all of _their_ bitterness than that their
bitterness is caused by those who never even had a chance in the first place.

As for me, I'm no saint either because I too can get bitter, annoyed, cynical
and depressed from time to time. The difference is just that don't tell people
off or post my unhappiness; I have the proclivity to just shut up and leave.
"There's no use to arguing". Or I do my absolute best to be constructive, like
now.

And to add to that: these days and even years I also barely share my own
happiness and/or optimism online, because I don't want my vulnerabilities
and/or soft spots to become targets. In fact, I'm not even sharing most of my
humanity / personality / identity online with strangers at all anymore, unless
it's to reflect or in an attempt to at least offer something to counter all of
the now common harshness. Like in comments such as this one. And if I'm really
_really_ honest then I also need to admit that this side of me is really
closer to a character trait than that it's something implying actual personal
involvement.

But I digressed, _sorry_ , so let me back up a bit to the two kinds of groups
we've established. Maybe the latter group (the one you pointed out) could
indeed bring something nice to the table. Assuming they could, it's not
realistic to assume they _would_ , for clearly it's not exactly an hospitable,
inviting environment these days, and I'd say this just doesn't make it
appealing _at all_.

Simply put: it is what it is mainly due to those who _can_ join in and they
either freeze, fight, or flight. Who in their right mind who's not here
already would want to join in on _that_ mess?

------
tim333
I googled a bit. The background is quite interesting. Johnson founded and sold
Braintree which is where the money came from.

The main brain tech guy is Theodore Berger who has tested implants in rats,
monkeys and humans with some success
[http://singularityhub.com/2015/11/15/first-human-tests-of-
me...](http://singularityhub.com/2015/11/15/first-human-tests-of-memory-
boosting-brain-implant-a-big-leap-forward/)

Berger on video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHubR09oKKE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHubR09oKKE)

~~~
nickpsecurity
Oh no. The guy behind my favorite company on bootstrapping page got rich
selling it to a top schemer in payments industry and fell for others' bullshit
that throwing money at neuroscience will make miracles happen. Wow. What an
ending...

~~~
the_watcher
A guy bootstrapped a company and got rich doing it: the best possible
inspiration to future bootstrappers, but you find that a bad thing? What's
your problem with someone spending _his own money_ to chase something you
think is impossible? Seriously, the amount of hate on HN for people that are
actually trying to do hard things is astonishing.

~~~
nickpsecurity
"A guy bootstrapped a company and got rich doing it: the best possible
inspiration to future bootstrappers"

Oh no. That's one possible inspiration. Another would be Braintree IPOing or
continuing as a company providing an alternative to Paypal's BS I constantly
read about while guy continues to make tons of money or get rich. Then he
invests in hard problems we're likely to solve where we have the necessary
foundation to begin to achieve the stated goals.

Instead, he got rich selling off his good company and now has money to blow on
stuff like this. Good for him. Still inspirational with Braintree's early work
still something I'm going to cite. Just still worth critiquing for where it
went or is going wrong so next bootstrapper considers better alternatives.

Also, realize the irony that you don't like us criticizing what he did with
Braintree or where the money is going while Braintree itself owed its success
to correct criticism of how successful payment companies were doing things &
where their investments were going. He pointed out the problems, showed a
better way via his offering, and now we're talking about him instead of them.
;)

~~~
CaveTech
The man doesn't owe you a goddamn thing, and doesn't have some moral
obligation to save you from shitty payment processing. You act like you rose
him out of the ashes to save humanity and that's simply not the case.

~~~
nickpsecurity
"The man doesn't owe you a goddamn thing, and doesn't have some moral
obligation to save you from shitty payment processing."

That's compatible with my comment. It proposes alternative to the path he took
that other bootstrappers with utilitarian bent might find interesting. It
doesn't require him personally to do anything. I even said his success was
"good for him" in terms of efforts in and result achieved.

"You act like you rose him out of the ashes to save humanity"

You made that up. I explicitly said he didn't. His goal was to get rich. It
would take more selfless individuals to do lasting things for humanity. It
will take majority of humanity working together to _save_ humanity.

~~~
tonyhb
So giving away $100M of his own money isn't in the slightest selfless? He's a
selfish individual? Helping terrible diseases isn't doing something lasting
for humanity?

~~~
nickpsecurity
People have to be totally selfish or selfless says a false dichotomy. People
seem to like those. I see people's actions to be along a spectrum between
where the motivations vary depending on what they want to do. Some people seem
to lean almost entirely toward one or the other but I'm not prescriptive about
that.

We don't have to guess about his motivations, though. It's in the article:

"For Johnson, the quest is innately personal. His step-father has early signs
of Alzheimer’s."

He and his step-father are suffering through the effects of Alzheimer's. He
definitely has personal gain from a treatment that would work. There's a clear
selfless angle on helping the step-father. He probably, after personally
experiencing it, also would like to prevent others from going through the same
thing. That's my guess. Respectable motivations for sure.

------
azinman2
“We can program yeast to do a specific function. We can expect the same path
with neural code.”

Ummm... that's quite a big leap!

~~~
untilHellbanned
Yep. Biologist here lol.

It would be interesting to know how much biology this dude truly explored
before plunking down his $100M on some other dude promising him to
revolutionize the brain.

~~~
hprotagonist
BME / sensory neurosystems guy here.

>It would be interesting to know how much biology this dude truly explored
before plunking down his $100M ...

Not enough.

~~~
forgotmysn
Would you guys prefer that Johnson donate his $100M to the NIH or a university
that's already working on related research, or is there benefit to him taking
a different route and funding Berger and this org directly?

~~~
hprotagonist
I think i'm largely agnostic about that in principle.

In practice, collaborations are hard and setting up new ones is even harder,
so striking out into the wild and being able to do cool stuff fast generally
costs more than 100M.

~~~
forgotmysn
From what I understand though, that's exactly why Johnson invested his own
money and turned down outside investment: this is just the first step on a
very long road, and it doesn't sound like he anticipates a viable return in an
amount of time that a venture fund could justify participating in.

~~~
hprotagonist
>" The futuristic device, which Johnson says might actually not need to be
implanted beneath the skull at all, is designed to facilitate communication
between brain cells by hacking the “neural code” that enables our brain to
store and recall key information. "

Estimated timescale: centuries. Not for want of trying, but we have no
credible idea what "the" neural code is, even in subcortical areas that are
relatively simple to study like the optic and auditory nerves. Once you're
anywhere beyond the inferior colliculus, all bets are officially off. (and if
you have any good ideas, drop me a line!)

Our best tools fail to explain anything particularly interesting about much,
much simpler analogous systems:
[http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055624](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055624).

------
slyrus
Damn, I thought the guy was going to throw $100M at linux kernel developers.
That would be nice.

~~~
dEnigma
I too briefly got excited when reading the headline. That would've really made
my day. So many people could work full-time on the Linux kernel.

~~~
Roritharr
Making sure one of the most used parts of software in the world gets proper
funding for additional security audits, better performance optimization for
more platforms, leveling the playing field for small hardware vendors who
can't afford their own Kernel Developers, allowing for more disruptive
technology on top of the Linux kernel?

Nah. Not really Valley Style, lets just fund another AI Moonshot. Because
there isn't enough money in AI already.

I mean sure, the ROI investing into the Linux Kernel is 0. But so much money
is flowing into AI Moonshots currently that look like their value will be 0
that one gets disheartened quickly when important infrastructure for everyone
is needing cash badly, but there is no businessmodel...

~~~
slackstation
> Nah. Not really Valley Style, lets just fund another AI Moonshot. Because
> there isn't enough money in AI already.

An AI moonshot if it works would change everything. It would change way more
than the Linux kernel ever even dreamed of doing.

~~~
Roritharr
Going by that logic all money should be poured into Moonshots. Every available
Ship should have sailed to find India. Every Researcher should be researching
immortality...

Ambition isn't the only thing that counts. As much as I'd love to seeing a
full cent of every taxdollar going into NASA, handing over the whole dollar
would make very people feel very miserable very fast.

I hope this makes the resentment towards the ratio of money flowing into AI
Moonshots compared to a little more down to earth things that are needed right
now a little more understandable.

------
golergka
What's with all the negativity on the comments here? Are all moonshots doomed
after Theranos? Or may be there's already solid proof that this is the next
Theranos?

I'm a very skeptical and pessimistic man, but can we extend at least some
benefit of a doubt here, please.

~~~
the_watcher
It's astonishing, given that we're all communicating via a technology that
would essentially be considered magic as little as 50 years ago.

------
robg
Neural implants are only a matter of time and money. Good to see someone
making a bold bet here and with his own money and time.

------
anindha
Trying and failing is better than not trying. Its his $100m and he earned the
right to take a shot at this.

I have watched Bryan talk before and have been following him. He is determined
enough to at least make a significant contribution in this area.

------
bambax
> _a company with the sole purpose of building hardware and software to
> augment human intelligence_

Human intelligence, while fallible and easy to turn off, is arguably our best
feature. It's also very versatile.

Bryan Johnson can spend his money any way he likes of course, but one has to
wonder why there aren't more initiatives to augment our _senses_ instead of
working on intelligence (our own or the intelligence of machines).

I would love to gain a permanent ability to see in the dark, hear ultrasounds,
know where North is at all times, etc.

And "all" one has to do with a new sensor is plug it in: the brain is very
good at making sense of any new signal, and using it, without prompting or
training.

The plugin-in part is non-trivial, of course (although there are shortcuts,
such as using the tongue as a crude V0); but one can imagine that once we're
able to build a general API to the human brain, many gadgets could be
developed for it.

~~~
edanm
"And "all" one has to do with a new sensor is plug it in: the brain is very
good at making sense of any new signal, and using it, without prompting or
training."

That doesn't sound right. E.g. see stories of blind people who have gotten
sight at a late age - I think the tendency is for them _not_ to be able to
really utilize sight the way sighted-from-birth people do.

------
mianos
This reads like he really liked the Nexus book trilogy.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nexus_Trilogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nexus_Trilogy)
Even some of the language is the same. The theme of the book is 'running a
kernel over neurons'. It is even an open source kernel.

------
partycoder
If they can find a way to tweak genes to force the brain to have more glial
cells, the type of cells that support neuron functions, or enhance the glial
performance, they can eventually make people sustain high mental performance
for longer periods of time.

One of the findings after analyzing Einstein's brain was that he had a higher
ratio of glias to neurons.

------
elcct
What if the locked power of human brain is pure stupidity? Well... there is
only one way to find out.

------
fleitz
"unlock the power of the human brain" lol, why not save yourself $100 million
and just take a Deepak Chopra seminar?

------
lsh123
Smells like another Theranos: too good to be true

~~~
wilam
It is his own money in his own company, so very different.

------
rms_returns
I'd read somewhere that the workings of our brains are just too complex for us
to understand, or rather, we are just too good to understand it thoroughly to
"unlock the powers".

You see, if the brain was simple enough for us to understand its workings, we
would not be even capable of understanding the basics of the nervous system
functioning (we would have been just too dumb with such simple brains!), and
therein lies this irony - We will never be able to fully understand our own
brains, because that very impossibility has given us the ability to understand
almost everything else in this universe.

~~~
cholmon
...what?

~~~
spynxic
rms_returns is saying that our own intelligence and ability to comprehend
things is a function of the complexity of our brains.

So, low complexity results in under-performing intelligent ability. On the
other hand, high complexity results in a higher performing brain but more
difficult to understand.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this argument because I suspect intelligent
ability is only partially related to neural architecture. Additionally, the
ability to perceive things lies in having some kind of framework in which a
question can be formed.

