• AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    My criticism of Neuralink’s response has nothing to do with whether or not the first patient was treated unfairly. It’s that it reveals Neuralink’s priorities: they had a choice going forward of trying to fix the first patient’s implant or giving up and starting over with a fresh patient, and they chose the latter.

    In animal testing, that decision would depend on how valuable the guinea pigs are.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      No? That’s insane. “We don’t k ow exactly what’s going on, but we are going to go poke around inside- oh shit he’s dead, if only we had waited until things stabilized and we had the information we needed.”

      Come on, don’t be ridiculous. “Try to fix it” could easily result in a dead patient, and I’m sure you’d be all for praising their attempt to fix it, right?

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      My guess is you know nothing about this. They may think reinserting them is too risky for the patient because they don’t know. You’re almost certainly just making up facts to justify your conclusions, rather than assessing the facts and coming to a conclusion based on them.