In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink’s first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard,” Arbaugh said. “I cried.” He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information.
Neuralink isn’t just treating humans like guinea pigs, they’re treating them like disposable guinea pigs.
You cherry-picked the first part of that paragraph. The end goes like this:
Arbaugh went on to say that he has since recovered from the initial disappointment and continues to have hope for the technology.
And then the next part of his statement is found in the following paragraph:
“I thought that I had just gotten to, you know, scratch the surface of this amazing technology, and then it was all going to be taken away,” he added. "But it only took me a few days to really recover from that and realize that everything I’ve done up to that point was going to benefit everyone who came after me.” He also said that “it seems like we’ve learned a lot and it seems like things are going in the right direction.”
Of course, the goal here is not to have an honest assessment of what happened. . .but to simply choose what we want to further our hatred (justified, IMO) of Musk.
And nothing about what you quoted indicates what he was or was not told about the potential outcomes of the procedure, or how he was treated. Only that he was disappointed with the outcome. Of course he was, of course he wanted it to work out, so of course he was disappointed.
I stand by my point that only the negative part of his statement was cherry-picked out in order to justify shitting on Musk, rather than honestly assessing what happened.
My criticism of Neuralink’s response has nothing to do with whether or not the first patient was treated unfairly. It’s that it reveals Neuralink’s priorities: they had a choice going forward of trying to fix the first patient’s implant or giving up and starting over with a fresh patient, and they chose the latter.
In animal testing, that decision would depend on how valuable the guinea pigs are.
Okay, no. As much of an issue as I have with musk and the way he bullrushes into these things, this really was the right response at this point.
It’s a new tech. That goes into someone’s brain. You do not just go rutting around up there if the first attempt failed, and further tests (which have a significant element of risk) shouldn’t be in the brain that’s already been through this, not until it’s much better tuned.
Brain surgery isn’t a minor procedure.
If they’re able to fix it for him, there’s a fair chance they will, I’d imagine.
But continuing to dig around after that failure is what treating him like a disposable Guinea pig would look like because that’s how they’d very likely kill him or substantially diminish his quality of life with brain damage.
There are lots of real reasons to hate musk. This isn’t one of them.
They didn’t exactly say no, they just said they want more data. It might not be that crazy not to rush things with a patient that needs re-implantation when you’re trying to test the next revision of the implant and have willing patient who only requires an initial implantation.
As long as these patients are properly informed on the risks and limitations of this experimental tech, I don’t see a problem. There’s no evidence that they are treating their patients badly, or failing to fulfill any promises in regards to the efficacy of the implants, or commitment to support these early test implants insofar as they agreed to provide to their patients (to my understanding, they are informed that the implant could be a total failure with no opportunities to re-implant.).
My guess is you know nothing about this. They may think reinserting them is too risky for the patient because they don’t know. You’re almost certainly just making up facts to justify your conclusions, rather than assessing the facts and coming to a conclusion based on them.
No? That’s insane. “We don’t k ow exactly what’s going on, but we are going to go poke around inside- oh shit he’s dead, if only we had waited until things stabilized and we had the information we needed.”
Come on, don’t be ridiculous. “Try to fix it” could easily result in a dead patient, and I’m sure you’d be all for praising their attempt to fix it, right?
You could actually read the article. The guy is glad to have helped make some one else’s life better. He doesn’t have brain damage and he is not dead nor is he worse off.
Is that where you draw the line on sympathy, or are you one of those people who is physically incapable of talking about anything but Israel/Palestine?
Even the worst people in history were at some point just a child that we could have potentially saved. Even as an adult, or after doing evil, I think sympathy and compassion never stops being the right answer. It’s just in practice we have to prioritise: the needy, the many.
You said verbatim, that a quadriplegic guy hoping to regain some control deserves no sympathy and then immediately went to war orphans in Gaza. I’m not putting anything in your mouth you didn’t shit out of it before
Or they want to actually have something that has a chance of working before doing it again…I doubt installing one of these things is a walk in the park and every install carries a high risk … I sure hope patient #2 is getting something with a possible fix…
Neuralink isn’t just treating humans like guinea pigs, they’re treating them like disposable guinea pigs.
You cherry-picked the first part of that paragraph. The end goes like this:
And then the next part of his statement is found in the following paragraph:
Of course, the goal here is not to have an honest assessment of what happened. . .but to simply choose what we want to further our hatred (justified, IMO) of Musk.
None of that concerns Neuralink’s treatment of him—just his process of learning to live with it.
And nothing about what you quoted indicates what he was or was not told about the potential outcomes of the procedure, or how he was treated. Only that he was disappointed with the outcome. Of course he was, of course he wanted it to work out, so of course he was disappointed.
I stand by my point that only the negative part of his statement was cherry-picked out in order to justify shitting on Musk, rather than honestly assessing what happened.
My criticism of Neuralink’s response has nothing to do with whether or not the first patient was treated unfairly. It’s that it reveals Neuralink’s priorities: they had a choice going forward of trying to fix the first patient’s implant or giving up and starting over with a fresh patient, and they chose the latter.
In animal testing, that decision would depend on how valuable the guinea pigs are.
Okay, no. As much of an issue as I have with musk and the way he bullrushes into these things, this really was the right response at this point.
It’s a new tech. That goes into someone’s brain. You do not just go rutting around up there if the first attempt failed, and further tests (which have a significant element of risk) shouldn’t be in the brain that’s already been through this, not until it’s much better tuned.
Brain surgery isn’t a minor procedure.
If they’re able to fix it for him, there’s a fair chance they will, I’d imagine.
But continuing to dig around after that failure is what treating him like a disposable Guinea pig would look like because that’s how they’d very likely kill him or substantially diminish his quality of life with brain damage.
There are lots of real reasons to hate musk. This isn’t one of them.
They didn’t exactly say no, they just said they want more data. It might not be that crazy not to rush things with a patient that needs re-implantation when you’re trying to test the next revision of the implant and have willing patient who only requires an initial implantation.
As long as these patients are properly informed on the risks and limitations of this experimental tech, I don’t see a problem. There’s no evidence that they are treating their patients badly, or failing to fulfill any promises in regards to the efficacy of the implants, or commitment to support these early test implants insofar as they agreed to provide to their patients (to my understanding, they are informed that the implant could be a total failure with no opportunities to re-implant.).
My guess is you know nothing about this. They may think reinserting them is too risky for the patient because they don’t know. You’re almost certainly just making up facts to justify your conclusions, rather than assessing the facts and coming to a conclusion based on them.
No? That’s insane. “We don’t k ow exactly what’s going on, but we are going to go poke around inside- oh shit he’s dead, if only we had waited until things stabilized and we had the information we needed.”
Come on, don’t be ridiculous. “Try to fix it” could easily result in a dead patient, and I’m sure you’d be all for praising their attempt to fix it, right?
I’m sure he was as he isn’t living under a rock. He agreed to this.
Thank you for showing how much bias is on this website and standing up for it.
People really need to chill out with their preconceived notions.
This website is going to be a shower of shit if it just people circle jerking.
If there is a reason not to like Musk this isn’t it. Honestly I could care less about some random guy.
You could actually read the article. The guy is glad to have helped make some one else’s life better. He doesn’t have brain damage and he is not dead nor is he worse off.
Oh boy he’s a currently happy disposable guinea pig, that makes it all better!
God forbid an adult of sound mind is allowed to decide what to do with his own body.
Haters got to hate
The patient fully embraced the Elon propaganda and spouted his praises on the dozens of media interviews he agreed to.
No sympathy for someone who invited a leopard into their house to catch the mice
If such a person doesn’t deserve sympathy, who does?
Starving children in Gaza, who will never see their families again because they’re dead
Is that where you draw the line on sympathy, or are you one of those people who is physically incapable of talking about anything but Israel/Palestine?
Of course it’s not where I draw the line. Don’t be obtuse.
When asked who deserves sympathy, I gave an answer— and a far more deserving one than this dope.
Even the worst people in history were at some point just a child that we could have potentially saved. Even as an adult, or after doing evil, I think sympathy and compassion never stops being the right answer. It’s just in practice we have to prioritise: the needy, the many.
Yeah, ok 👍🏻
So unless someone is bombed and starving they deserve no sympathy? What kinda brain dead take is that?
As brain dead as putting those words in my mouth
You said verbatim, that a quadriplegic guy hoping to regain some control deserves no sympathy and then immediately went to war orphans in Gaza. I’m not putting anything in your mouth you didn’t shit out of it before
That’s not what I said. That’s just what you wanted to hear so your tantrum could be justified.
Perhaps if you spent Less time making up lies and more time learning how to read, you wouldn’t be in this predicament.
Yeah, everyone who signs up for experimental medical trials is a stooge.
Or they want to actually have something that has a chance of working before doing it again…I doubt installing one of these things is a walk in the park and every install carries a high risk … I sure hope patient #2 is getting something with a possible fix…