• just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A few years ago, I read a really comprehensive article about Neuralink on waitbutwhy.com. Mind you, it’s long.

    But if I recall correctly, the reason why needles rather than scanning is precision, speed and 2 two-way communication. Needles is a more risky and invasive procedure, but it does allow near instant communication, at the precise neurons you want to target, and it allows to override the signal.

    In some cases of paralysis, the signal to move a muscle might be there, but it’s just to weak to get anything done. By amplifying it, you fix that problem at the source.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, wouldn’t that also require manufacturing a unique device for every person using it? In case it becomes commercial.

      • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s been a few years since I last read it, but from what I recall the devices themselves can be pretty much the same, but it might vary where exactly they “plug in”. Also each individual user will have to learn how to use the device. That knowledge gap is supposed to decrease as the technology improves.

        Initially it will be used to improve the lives of people with disabilities, but eventually it will be used for direct communication and beyond. For starters, it took me a few minutes to type out this response on my phone, being bottlenecked by my fingers and SwiftKeys insistence that I meant different words. If I could just “think” the words directly into the input fortis field, it would have been much faster.