
I was excited for Neuralink, then I watched the demo - two_almonds
https://thenextweb.com/neural/2020/08/31/i-was-excited-for-neuralink-then-i-watched-elon-musks-stupid-demo/
======
ansible
The demo was impressive. Did the author not see the part where they were
predicting the body position of the walking pig?

I don't see how that is going to be done with stick on sensors.

And yes, some implantable BCI devices have better capability. The point is to
make this as cheap as possible... so that it doesn't require a brain surgeon
to install. Because brain surgeons are expensive.

~~~
shatnersbassoon
If he can't get cars to drive around a city autonomously, who is going to let
him drive electrodes around their brain using automation?

Brain implant surgery is incredibly invasive and risky even _with_ brain
surgeons.

~~~
visarga
They start with animal tests, then impaired people and finally public at
large. It's stupid to get implanted with a work-in-progress device yet, except
if your life quality requires it.

------
vansul
To me (neuro undergrad, comp sci masters), the demo seemed underwhelming but
encouraging. As far as I can tell the tech was not doing anything particularly
novel and the 'fitbit in your skull' analogy was personally uninspiring.
[edit: the volume of reads /form factor is a step forward]

That said, the demo was mostly for attracting talent - lots of money and a
great team will likely get them somewhere. In terms of their long term goals I
expect the area that will give them the most trouble is reading/writing
interesting stuff on the cortex. Neural coding is really hard and poorly
understood.

~~~
nabla9
I have problem with the two different narratives.

Neuralink has two goals:

1) short term. better BMIs to to treat serious brain diseases with more
bandwidth and more and better electrodes. I can see this happening.

2) long term. Invasive BMI for something other than treating diseases. Better
electronics is not going to make invasive brain implants safe for consumer
use, they just reduce certain risks.

To solve (2) Neuralink must solve fundamental issues in medicine related to
body implants and brain surgery. It would be groundbreaking and probably
revolutionize medicine even outside brain implants. Neuralink researchers
might get Nobel in Medicine.

 _Breakthrough in brain surgery._ To get FDA to approve brain surgery (making
holes in the dura mater) even brain surgery to open and close the brain for no
good medical reason would be insanely hard. Any form of brain surgery has lots
of risks. Bleeding in the brain, seizure, scarring of the brain, immediate
infection risk and late infection risk. Inserting lace with thousands of
electrodes is huge operation even if you could do with with endoscope.

 _Breakthrough with implants_. With the BMI ther are issues with coagulation
and constant low level inflammation. It's both health risk and gradually
degrades the effectiveness of electrodes. Electrode must be in contact with
tissue and interact with it. There is risks even with teeth implants,
artificial knees and hips. They collect bacteria around them and they are just
inert objects.

~~~
rini17
Cochlear implants are established technology, and they also interface with
nerves, just not with brain matter. Is this really so much harder?

~~~
nabla9
The device stimulates cochlear nerve it's not brain surgery.

Just like with any other implant, the risk must justify the benefit. Cochlear
implants have 3% rate for major complications, like life threatening
meningitis or facial paralysis (caused by nerve damage). Potential benefit
justifies the risk.

~~~
Balgair
To expand a bit here: Cochlear Implants are inserted into the cochlea, the
curly organ in the ear that is responsible for hearing.

The other organs in the ear are the vestubular organs which give you a sense
of balance.

The little wire in the implant has electrodes along it's length that shock the
'damaged' cells in the cochlea, bypassing how those cells sense sound, and
just directly stimulating them.

The reason that it's a bit 'crude', is that the shocking is not specific to
the nerves, it just shocks a bunch of those sensing cells. The reason for this
is a bit involved and is due to the tonotopy (sound-map) of the cochlea.

The implantation is relatively simple for a trained surgeon. It can be done on
small children.

[https://www.cochlear.com/us/en/home/diagnosis-and-
treatment/...](https://www.cochlear.com/us/en/home/diagnosis-and-
treatment/implant-preparation-and-procedures/cochlear-implant-surgery)

------
SiempreViernes
Prof Andrew Jackson, Professor of Neural Interfaces, Newcastle University,
said:

> “Neuralink are progressing through the steps that have been taken with
> previous neural interface technology. They have moved from rodents to a
> large mammal (pigs), and are apparently seeking FDA approval for a human
> trial. I had some sympathy with Elon, having also had experience of animal
> experiments that don’t work perfectly the day we have visitors in the room!
> But proving the safety of new biomedical implants in animals is always a
> vital step towards a clinical trial.

> “I don’t think there was anything revolutionary in the presentation, but
> they are working through the engineering challenges of placing multiple
> electrodes into the brain. In terms of their technology, 1024 channels is
> not that impressive these days, but the electronics to relay them wirelessly
> is state-of-the-art, and the robotic implantation is nice.

> “But the biggest challenge is what you do with all this brain data. The
> demonstrations were actually quite underwhelming in this regard, and didn’t
> show anything that hasn’t been done before (e.g. decoding limb position
> during walking). There is a big difference between recording brain cells and
> ‘reading thoughts’, especially when it comes to higher-level cognitive
> functions that we don’t understand as well. The idea of ‘writing to the
> brain’ is even more questionable – there are fundamental limitations to
> targeting specific networks of neurons in a meaningful way using electrical
> stimulation.

> “So in summary I would say this is solid engineering but mediocre
> neuroscience. Finally, I think it is unfortunate that they are presenting
> their work in this way, rather than publishing peer-reviewed papers that
> would allow their claims to be scrutinised, but I guess this is something
> that we will have to get used to as neural interfaces move from the academic
> to the commercial sector.”

[https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-
elon-m...](https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-elon-musks-
neuralink-demonstration-involving-pigs/)

~~~
kken
> “So in summary I would say this is solid engineering but mediocre
> neuroscience. Finally, I think it is unfortunate that they are presenting
> their work in this way, rather than publishing peer-reviewed papers that
> would allow their claims to be scrutinised, but I guess this is something
> that we will have to get used to as neural interfaces move from the academic
> to the commercial sector.”

Well, and this is exactly what needs to be done to further this area as it is
the part that's not completely addressed by academia. Any kind of academic
research obviously focusses on generating one-time results for publication.

~~~
SiempreViernes
So companies making claims that cannot hold up to scrutiny is the basis for
technological advancement, is that your argument? I ask because what you are
doing is criticise the scholars desire for a Musk owned company to have their
claims fact checked...

------
moontear
I am not an expert, but what I thought was remarkable is the 12000 channels
Musk talked about. New cochlear implants have 120 channels - one channel is
one neuron (AFAIK) - more neurons is better results.

I would love some expert take on this, but my first reaction was „12000 sounds
like a lot - they all work? That’s cool“.

Also check out this wait but why article which I think explains the resolution
pretty well:
[https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html](https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html)

~~~
thornjm
I’m very much not an expert. I think the state of the art for measuring brain
activity is the functional MRI. fMRIs have limits on their spatial, temporal
and ‘activity’ resolution. I think they also measure ‘only’ blood flow and not
electrical activity.

My guess is that if Neuralink does nothing more than provide a more
sophisticated tool for investigating the brain than the current state of the
art then it will have been a success.

A quick google suggests the highest resolution fMRIs currently have about 1
million voxels of spatial resolution at a sample rate of about 1/sec. EEGs can
measure electrical activity but only at very low resolution and on the
surface.

~~~
hprotagonist
It depends on what you mean by "measuring brain activity". fMRI has a spatial
resolution on the order of the summed activity of tens of thousands of neurons
and a temporal resolution of 2-4 seconds, so it's often very imprecise if you
want to know what one neuron in particular is up to.

I've seen single-unit recordings done with electrodes and simultaneous Ca2+
imaging with a 2-photon microscope. You trade real-time speed and single unit
specificity for a loss of knowledge about the population.

MEG can give you real-time summed behavior, but the inverse problem is
indeterminate so you're less sure of _where_ that activity is coming from.

"what's the good tool to measure brain activity" is very often a function of
"what do i want to find out about the brain?"

------
two_almonds
They stated explicitly that this was a recruitment event, so personally I feel
like some of the hype can be forgiven.

The tone of this article is negative and I instinctively want to defend
Neuralink because I hope that we can eventually achieve all of those sci-fi
ambitions. But I think that's the wrong approach, and possibly insulting to
researchers who have been working on these problems for decades only to be
overshadowed by what I have to admit was not the most impressive demo.

However, this event does attract attention, so what I'm really hoping for is
an influx of long-read articles and in-depth analyses coming from experts in
the various fields surrounding Neuralink's aims as a result of the hightened
interest in the topic.

------
miked85
The "tech demo" was less than impressive. 3 pigs all acting normal, one
(supposedly) had the implant and then had it removed, one (supposedly) had the
implant and made a lot of beeping sounds, and one was, well, just a normal
pig.

~~~
emteycz
Interestingly, all the neurologists and bioengineers I know were _very_
excited by the demo.

~~~
jansan
Did they have dollar signs in their eyes?

~~~
emteycz
We're from a country where research or medical work is not really well
rewarded and you think of it as a sort of charity, so no, no dollars and no
Czech crowns too. They're excited that a man was able to do that within just a
few years, while the sensory capabilities are not new (we used to have a lot
less channels, though), the _extreme_ miniaturization, the surgery procedure
and the development speed are _very_ exciting.

------
swiley
If they handle the software for this in any way like the Tesla I wouldn’t want
it near my head.

~~~
soco
On the other hand, SpaceX runs rather professionally. It also has to, of
course. My point is, they CAN deliver. Probably with Tesla they're just trying
to get by with the least acceptable effort.

~~~
me_me_me
SpaceX is somewhat less impressive as a company than you might imagine.

They don't really have that much competition apart from Soyuz at the moment.

There is huge support in US to have a alternative to Soyuz.

Also NASA is prisoner of government corruption to the point where NASA
operations are crippled in their capabilities - ie you get funding only if you
keep unnecessary bureaucracy running for sake of some governor who won by
promising space jobs.

SpaceX took all motivated and knowledgeable people gave them money to do what
NASA was not allowed to do.

I am not trying to take away from their successes. The reusable modules
landing in sync are amazing feat of engineering.

And SpaceX has actually working 'product', even more solid than Tesla (as a
car its expensive, low volume, with a lot of issues compared to what we come
to expect of a car).

Other stuff that Musk is trying to push are fairy tales, hyperloop is bad idea
from the ground up. Boring company is boring. Its just bad implementation of a
subway. And this neurolink is so far away from being anything usable, they are
not even clear what it suppose to be. "Stick in some wires we will see what
happens revolutionary tech TM."

But SpaceX business was waiting to happen. Musk was smart enough to throw
money at it. So I wouldn't use spaceX as example of some godlike Musk
abilities to create something out of nothing.

~~~
soco
I agree. That's why I said "runs profesionally" not choosing other fancy
wording...

------
waihtis
These various networked computer components being attached to our bodies make
me very nervous. See: hackers control pacemaker shock cycles with malware. [1]

Software will always be vulnerable and it’s just a matter of time until
someone gets eliminated by this vector - or worse, think about a wormable
exploit aimed at mass adopted Neuralinks to mass fry people..

[1] [https://www.wired.com/story/pacemaker-hack-malware-black-
hat...](https://www.wired.com/story/pacemaker-hack-malware-black-hat/)

~~~
rocqua
It is scary, but what is the actual incentive?

Terrorism, and that is it as far as I can see. In cyber up until know,
criminals and espionage seem like much bigger threats than terrorism. We are
introducing a new attack surface here, and it makes sense to consider whether
we want to. But it is not an attack surface that seems likely to attract many
attackers.

~~~
SiempreViernes
Really invasive ads is the main one I'd say. Imagine scammy supplement ads
appearing on your phone whenever your hearth beat got a bit unusual.

Heck, maybe messing with the rate for a short while is harmless but scary, and
a good time to show ads for some pills...

~~~
blackflame7000
Sort of like a Smart watch?

~~~
SiempreViernes
Good point, though people with pacemakers and people with smartwatches don't
overlap very well.

------
yholio
Neuralink is not a startup, it is a research lab dabbling in a very
speculative area. Something might come out of it in the very long run, or it
might not. The demo showed essentially a tool they are using in this research,
a miniaturized brain implant which is technologically superior to what
competing researchers are using. They showed an application of that research
tool, a recorded session (not included in the actual demo, probably hard to
reproduce) where they claim to have "predicted" the movements of a pig.
"Predicted" is probably a strong word since the brain controls motor
functions.

So they showed progress and proved they are actually a lab and actually
perform research. That being said, there was absolutely nothing in the demo
remotely related to a "brain-computer" interface, nor are they likely to get
there for many, many years. That's the speed when doing hard science, and
pumping more money only has a marginal efect.

------
refresher
>But that didn’t stop me from getting hyped up to the point of forgetting that
Musk is a con-artist at worst and just some dude with a bunch of money and
charisma at best.

Seems a bit harsh.

------
djohnston
one feature i dont understand about neuralink is the promised transmission of
thoughts.

lets say i have a device that can encode activity of every neuron in my brain
simultaneously. i think some variation of the thought "elephant," and the
neuralink creates some digital representation of these signals.

then i send that digital encoding to your brain's neuralink.

how on earth are you going to think of ANY elephant, let alone my elephant?
the structural nature of our brains is certainly different, the network of
activated neurons aren't isomorphic, certainly not identical, right?

i am by no means an expert, but i dont see how you can ever take a digital
signal and turn it into a conscious meat thought.

motor signals seem somewhat more tractable

~~~
visarga
> how on earth are you going to think of ANY elephant, let alone my elephant?

Both brains sensors are calibrated on the same images, then a common
representation can be found as intermediary. It has been done with neural nets
translating into a common intermediary language, thus needing N
encoders/decoders instead of (N-1)^2 separate networks. In the easiest case it
can be a simple linear transform to map one vector space into another.

~~~
djohnston
wouldnt you need a distinct transformation for every thought?

~~~
visarga
the transformation of brain signals to the common space can be a neural net -
and since neural nets are non-linear they can adapt to the inputs

you'd need to train a bidirectional adapter for every person instead of
(N-1)^2 adapters for each pair of people

~~~
djohnston
got it, thanks for the clarification

------
peteretep
> Elon Musk preys on the hopeful and optimistic

Yes but he also launches rockets into fucking space; that is to say, he may be
selling snake oil, but he’s also selling legitimate magic beans.

~~~
CPLX
Indeed. He also launches supposedly self-driving passenger cars into concrete
barriers.

It’s the latter that’s causing some concern I’d think.

~~~
mustyoshi
Is it more or less concerning than when humans do the same?

Autonomous driving is still a relatively young beast. I don't have specific
numbers infront of me, but I imagine mile for mile, autonomous vehicles are
still safer than humans.

~~~
CPLX
I also don't trust random humans to drill holes in my head.

~~~
senectus1
its hardly random...

------
arijun
I think the author calling Musk a conman is too strong a reaction to what goes
on. I think Musk has a tendency to oversell already great technology with
science fiction. Teslas are amazing cars but full self driving has been 6
months away for years now.

Like the author, I would also be upset if I believed Musks promises of a
brain-computer interface, only to see them dashed. But Neuralink is already an
amazing improvement, and I am still excited to see what will come of it.

~~~
CJefferson
As you say, Musk has been claiming self-driving is 6 months away for years
now, yet whenever a crash happens they claim drivers must keep full attention.
How is that not the definition of a con-man?

~~~
mseidl
Plus the horrible quality of of the cars too.

~~~
arijun
I imagine that for people who bought the cars, the other characteristics
outweigh build quality.

Separately, you might be interested to know that apparently the build quality
has gone up quite a bit recently:
[https://youtu.be/TOrrdqje9Og](https://youtu.be/TOrrdqje9Og)

------
nihil75
This article is completely wrong and celebrates ignorance.

~~~
nihil75
Innovations demonstrated:

\- Coin-sized brain implant, flush with skull, no external wires.

\- 1024 channels EEG

\- Electrode insertion with minimal brain-matter loss

\- Analysis and prediction of brain-activity (node-beep and motion joint
positions)

------
ashildr
> Elon Musk preys on the hopeful and optimistic.

Drama queen.

------
ykevinator
This reads like a teenage girl rolling her eyes wrote it.

------
dayaz36
Why is this article even being shared on HN let alone end up on the front page
within minutes of posting? Anyone with the slightest understanding of this
topic can poke holes in every single sentence in this ridiculously uninformed
article. I stopped reading half way as it was making me dumber. HN can be so
demoralizing sometimes. You'd think this would be the last place to find
innovators being smeared but here we are...

