• Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Someone paralyzed from the neck down for whom this enables the use of computers, which they before couldn’t do, probably would rather have the outdated model than none

    • extant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Would they still want it if it became hackable and someone could do nefarious things to them which they no doubt will try?

      • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        That’s up to the individual, I don’t think there’s universal answer to that. If it eventually makes it possible to restore a person’s sight, hearing or the ability to walk, I’m sure most would take the gamble.

        • extant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          Those should be closed systems and don’t need to network with other systems and should be safe enough, its when we start networking that it becomes incredibly risky which is what neuralink is intended to do. I don’t think the average person understands how many automated attacks are flooding interconnected computers as we speak and you’re dropping someone’s brain into that and we don’t understand the scope of what can be done intentionally or unintentionally, it’s not outside the realm of possibility an automated attack trying to rapidly port scan and compromise a neuralink could overwhelm and damage the device and cause brain damage or death.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          There are people out there with short-range, wireless pacemakers with no security. Most just provide information you’d expect but some of them are also defibrillators (they can kill). As far as I know none have been harmed in an hacked attack but a hacked brain implant brings to mind more than just killing the owner. We may have an interest as a society in making this illegal because it’s not worth the gamble to us for people’s actions to be hijacked remotely.

          • Jax@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I highly doubt that someone disabled enough to need implants like this is capable of doing damage to anyone but themselves. Like if you’re interested in protecting them, sure I’ll accept that. But the idea that society needs to protect itself from this is silly.

            • tabular@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I don’t understand how one could think brain implants is a totally safe invention for a society. Did you consider more possibilities than just manipulating people into to physically attacking others?

                • tabular@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  I doubt me giving suggestions is worth the effort here. I worry thoughts and beliefs could be manipulated with enough knowledge of the brain. Technology to interact with the brain directly is a revolution of the manipulation already enacted through our eyes and ears.