(no title)
dadrock | 4 years ago
So what? Stop trying? Give up? What's the point of this statement? Why is the timeline you personally find realistic relevant to anyone else but you?
I just don't get this attitude. It's such a sour grapes type of attitude. Either help out, or get out.
mattkrause|4 years ago
I work in this field and I have such strong, mixed feelings about companies like these. On the one hand, more interest in the brain and neurotech is great. These are tough problems, and we need new ideas, new tools, and new approaches. The standard academic approach of throwing a few trainees at a problem for a few years each (mostly in isolation), might not be the best way to tackle a problem that ranges from biophysics to psychology (and everything in between: materials science, signal processing, etc).
On the other hand, I worry that excessive hype is going to blow the field up before it gets started. If Elon Musk says he can implant 3000 electrodes that will let you control your iPhone--by next year--why would anyone fund me to do the slower, slogging work that I think will be required to eventually make something like that possible? This isn't just a critique of industry; the same brand of hucksterism shows up in parts of academia too. Throwing cold water on people's hopes and dreams isn't fun, but I think it's important for the long-term health of neuroscience as a field.
Shorter term, companies should also think about who they're attracting with this hype. I'm on the job market (in a very low-key way), and one of my principle requirements is that I want to work somewhere that is serious about the science: I want to build something that will actually work, instead of burning a pile of VC cash chasing hype or, God forbid, Theranos. Many of my colleagues feel the same way.
perardi|4 years ago
It’s called “skepticism”. You read enough history, you realize the charlatans greatly outnumber the geniuses, and you do your due-diligence before you invest, or form some weird cult.
tokipin|4 years ago
bpodgursky|4 years ago
dadrock|4 years ago
cblconfederate|4 years ago
devindotcom|4 years ago
Leaving aside that this person was probably in this field before Neuralink and the others, in matters such as these, offering an expert opinion on a market filled with snake oil certainly is helping out. Otherwise we rely on people whose first priority is not truth but profit.
>So what? Stop trying? Give up?
Her suggestion is to exercise skepticism and be realistic about what the actual applications and markets are.
qaq|4 years ago
Matthew MacDougall, Head of Neurosurgery at Neuralink and neurosurgeon at California Pacific Medical Center. He was previously working at Stanford where he worked in labs that implemented and designed brain-computer interfaces.
Vanessa Tolosa, Director of Neural Interfaces. She previously led a neurotechnology team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that worked with a wide variety of technology on technology prostheses that were used in clinical and academic settings.
dadrock|4 years ago
computerex|4 years ago
There is nothing wrong with grounding a company's claims/goals against reality. Particularly relevant for any company lead by Elon Musk. His timelines are always wrong. He's been promising FSD is just a year away for the better part of the last decade.
neolog|4 years ago
I don't get this attitude. The author is an expert. Can't we learn from her?