• Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    4 months ago

    Someone paralyzed from the neck down for whom this enables the use of computers, which they before couldn’t do, probably would rather have the outdated model than none

    • extant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Would they still want it if it became hackable and someone could do nefarious things to them which they no doubt will try?

      • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That’s up to the individual, I don’t think there’s universal answer to that. If it eventually makes it possible to restore a person’s sight, hearing or the ability to walk, I’m sure most would take the gamble.

        • extant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Those should be closed systems and don’t need to network with other systems and should be safe enough, its when we start networking that it becomes incredibly risky which is what neuralink is intended to do. I don’t think the average person understands how many automated attacks are flooding interconnected computers as we speak and you’re dropping someone’s brain into that and we don’t understand the scope of what can be done intentionally or unintentionally, it’s not outside the realm of possibility an automated attack trying to rapidly port scan and compromise a neuralink could overwhelm and damage the device and cause brain damage or death.