My thought on Neuralink implanting tech in human heads for the first time:
Brain implants are one of those technologies where the MTBF for the implant MUST exceed the MTBF of the implantee. And there must be lifetime after-sales support, Or else the execs who made the decision to pull support should go to prison for the rest of their lives.
@cstross in the last half decade or so, TWO separate companies have shut down that had cybernetic implants in patients, and they removed them or removed support for them and fucked them over
@JohnLoader6@jwz We've all been there, right? Started out with a big swinging 8 inch, then it turned out that 5.25" was the standard, then we were forced into a 3.5" shell: unlucky Brits ended up with 3", and shudder at the fate of Zenith MiniSport users condemned to get all their sensations from just a 2" package.
(Yes there really was a 2" floppy disk format. I've still got a couple kicking around somewhere.)
I suspect Neuralink will do the same thing when people start reporting problems like blinding headaches or the inability to taste food on Tuesday afternoons.
Given that this is Musk I'd like to check first that it was implanted, that it was tech, that it was in the head, and that it was on a human. And then that it was made by, and done by, Neuralink. After that there are a number of other questionable details.
Your point is unimpeachable - but bankruptcy law will overrule it if all else fails..
@glc If that's the case, then bankruptcy law will need to be amended to take second priority to the civil rights of the implantees. At a minimum they should absolutely get to be first in line ahead of all the other creditors.
Unless Congressional lobbyists are paid to make it so.
I wonder who will be paying them and - aside from the direct evils of that agenda - I wonder what the unexpected consequences of orphaned bioware will be.
I suspect that the captive users will be an extremely profitable resource, for their second and third service providers.
Bonus marks for the beneficial owners being untraceable.
@hairyears@glc My plot outline for the cancelled third Scottish police procedural revolved around crimes relating to DRM on orphan brain implants. It starts with a man walking into a police station to complain that he's just been murdered (and he's telling the truth) ...
@cstross@glc declaring bankruptcy as a neurotech company with any installed implants should mean the company gets liquidated automatically into a state trust that finances lifetime care and maintenance.
@Sevoris@glc Needs punishment options for owners who do that deliberately to cash out, though. Otherwise: (a) acquire neurotech company, (b) load it up with debt, (c) walk away with profits, (d) government is forced to step in and pay the debts.
@PhilipKing Yep. Usually to provide deep brain stimulation for severe epilepsy or parkinsonism—both serious debilitating illnesses—and experimentally for some forms of blindness. Neuralink, in contrast, seem to be going after conscious brain/computer control, which seems odd, given how cheap keyboards have gotten over the past five decades or so …
@cstross There are people with early vision implants that went blind again when the company went out of business. I feel like these kinds of things need to be made open source by law. At the very least they should be required to release the source upon either going out of business or discontinuing the service.
@StarkRG@cstross I am not sure what the model should be. Making the code and specs available could still take a year to fix (and someone with the experience to do that).
I think the company that does such a think should have to set up a fund to cover support costs for the lifetime of the recipients. And that should be out of the control of shareholders.
@SteveClough@cstross I get the desire to keep such cutting edge research in-house, but if that house has collapsed, the source code for driving devices already installed should be made public. That would at least allow other people to take up maintaining the software either on a volunteer basis or being hired.
Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable having any devices installed in me that I don't control in their entirety and that means being able to install my own code.
@StarkRG@cstross My worry is, especially with adaptable or trained systems, you could take 6 months from a good starting place to understand the software (with existing devs help). I feel that some of these types of devices are more than just code (yes, if it was just code, I can sort it. If it is systems, it is much harder).
No way any such thing is ever coming near me. But I get that for some people, it can be lifesaving.
@SteveClough@cstross Yeah, it definitely wouldn't be an easy transition, but if the source code is available, it's at least possible. Especially if you could hire some of the people who worked for the now defunct company. Without the source code it just isn't at all. You could, maybe, reverse engineer something, but you'd have to dig the implants out first anyway.
@StarkRG@SteveClough This is medical device tech, which is NOTHING LIKE consumer software or hardware. You not only need the source code and CAD renderings, you need people who understand how they fit together with a human brain—which is at the intersection of electronics and neurobiology, two distinct and difficult specialties. Company goes bust? All that institutional knowledge/talent is lost, regardless of the design documents.
@StarkRG@cstross That is why I want it funded for life, because those brilliant devs are liable to want something nes and different, not a lifetime of maintaining the same stuff.
And commercially, it would never work. If the funding is there, I feel it might have a chance of keeping some of the devs, long enough to train new people.
The problem with you doing it yourself is that the implant may be the only way you can operate your computer.
@SteveClough@cstross That would certainly be ideal, I'm not sure how it would work financially, though. If you put it all on the company creating the devices, the cost of entry would be completely prohibitive. You could, instead, make a centralised government or non-profit organization that could maintain them separately from the originating companies, but I don't see any US politicians getting behind that and it'd be a hard sell even in more progressive countries.
@StarkRG@SteveClough It's how prosthetic limbs (medical devices) were made and supported during/after the first and second world wars in the UK (hint: lots of battlefield amputees).
I'm n ot interested in how the US handles it, the USA is a broken dystopian hellscape for anything medical and there's nothing to be learned from it except examples of what not to do.
@Nfoonf Replacement knee and hip joints too, but those are available from multiple suppliers and IIRC are either not covered by patents or the patents have expired.
@cstross I would like to see medical devices of all kinds - and particularly implants - treated by law as part of peoples bodies.
Trashing someone's retinal implant should be the same crime as gouging someones eyes out. Breaking a wheelchair on a flight equivalent to breaking someones legs. Shutting down the servers that communicate with a brain implant the same as willfully causing brain damage.
@bencurthoys@cstross would have nice side-effects in the right to get those little helpers to people with handicaps. When they are treated as part of your body, insurances cannot find arguments to NOT finance them.
Add comment