Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nexuist 1901 days ago
A lot of people are focusing on the Bluetooth aspect of this which seems to be the most inconsequential part of it. Of course you need to connect to the brain device remotely; what do you want, a USB port on top of your head? Or should we go back to PS/2 or parallel ports and everyone can hide a 2in thick wire in their ponytail?

If we want the brain to be an input device then we must treat it like an input device. That means interfacing with it with the most modern/common standards we have, which, for better or worse (mostly worse), is currently Bluetooth.

Do you also think it's weird that people can put on VR headsets to alter their sight, or put in AirPods to subvert their hearing? 'Cause it is, but I think we've all normalized it to the point that it feels like something we're allowed to do. I think the same will happen with Neuralink at quite a fast pace.

1 comments

I wasn't saying that using Bluetooth is absurd. The Absurd part, in my opinion, is treating the brain as an "input device". Ones brain should not be tinkered with.

You can not compare VR Headsets and airpods to a chip that is, literally, implanted IN your brain. - These devices generate Extrinsic Stimuli. The Neuralink however directly READS the Neuron Activity (as I understood it).