[computerthings]

> If it was that or be paralyzed for the rest of your life, would you at least consider it?

It's all hypothetical anyway, what's your deal? Are you saying the totally hypothetical life changing cure is something to be impressed by so much, that the real suffering caused by those pursuing it is to be ignored? Ignoring the real suffering for some hypothetical deus ex machina is very cowardly, and if my hypothetical sacrifice reminded you of that, that's fine.

"If Elon Musk gave a shit about anything than profit, and knew his ass from his elbow, and this tech was feasible, and you were paralyzed, would you do it?"

He doesn't, he doesn't, it may not be, and I'm not, so the question is moot. But it's very scientific to ask, and a great way to navigate such society impacting questions, thanks!

[try_the_bass]

Yikes dude. Neither SpaceX nor Tesla would exist if he only cared about profit. Nor would Neuralink!

This is Reddit-level delusion right here. Please don't bring that here.

[ben_w]

While the discourse could be better, that counterargument doesn't work either: all of those companies still make sense even if they were purely driven by profit motives as they also represent gaps in the marketplace.

I think Musk is driven by both.

Even now, despite the flaws I see in him, I still assume Musk thinks he's improving humanity.

But he needs, and knows he needs, a lot of money for Mars. There's unambiguously a lot of profit motive.

Unlike @computerthings, my objection is on the tech, not the person. The person doesn't help, he also doesn't seem to get the mindset needed for quality software security, but also doesn't make it much worse given how bad this is everywhere.