249
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
249 points (92.8% liked)
Technology
59323 readers
4559 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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the neck down for whom this enables the use of computers, which they before couldn't do, probably would rather have the outdated model than none
Would they still want it if it became hackable and someone could do nefarious things to them which they no doubt will try?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Did you? Because you haven't named them.
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.
Compared to full paralysis? I think a lot of people would still want it