[_Microft]

I think the solution might even turn out to be something like build-it-and-the-drivers-will-come. Neuroplasticity is enormous. There are reports about a conjoined twin pair in Canada that supposedly can "think inside the others head" (they're connected at the head!).

[barischrooneyj]

Agree absolutely, a step toward new research related to "drivers". I think it will be interesting how age might affect early usage of such a neural lace. Perhaps a link operated from a young age (even birth) will operate better as the baby's other "drivers" (for the usual IO operations like sight and hearing) havn't developed as much. Also for AI-safety it is important to begin interfacing between between digital and neural as early as possible.

[lsc]

>Also for AI-safety it is important to begin interfacing between between digital and neural as early as possible.

I see no evidence that we're going to get anything like machine consciousness in the near future. Moore's law was going to get it for us, but... that isn't looking so clear anymore. Sure, machines can do more and more tasks that used to be human-only... but there's not a clear path from that to consciousness.

On the other hand, speculative brain surgery is super dangerous, and shouldn't be done to people who are too young to give informed consent.

All that said, I'd personally be willing to take some significant risk myself, if it gave me a credible chance at a useful neural interface. But I'm an adult; I think it would be ridiculously unethical to make that decision for an infant. Even as an adult, I would personally need a lot more education than I currently have to decide what was 'credible' at this point.