Neuralink 'Participant 1' says his life has changed

so are people who claim placebos and homeopathy improved their conditions, we are not reliable on an individual level

No placebo can let him "do things like play Mario Kart, control his television, and turn his Dyson air purifier on and off without physically moving his fingers or any other part of his body."

Given that there are objective changes, it is not unreasonable to believe his claim that he is satisfied or has benefitted from them.

Placebos only effect subjective outcomes, not objective ones.

You are right when it comes to qualia, but wholly incorrect in this case. There are measurable metrics in his life (ie independent use of computers, social engagements etc.)

It's not like he's having to rate his level of happiness here, these are physical benefits

if it is truly "objective" then his subjective experience is irrelevant, so your logic makes no sense. it is not necessarily incorrect to investigate or be skeptical about another's self reported "subjective" claims (never mind their "objective" ones), for the reasons the comment you were dismissive of mentioned. plus given the nature of the company one would hardly be surprised if certain facts are cherry-picked over others. if it's truly as cut and dry as you believe, then surely any independent expert will soon end up empty handed. being dismissive of such an endeavor before it has even begun feels like kool-aid sippin...

That's not categorically true. Although a placebo inherently relies on a patient's subjective understanding of receiving a treatment, that understanding can change any number of very objective outcomes. That's why so many studies that measure objective metrics use placebos to begin with.

The objective and subjective observations are about different but related things.

The objective measurements are about his enhanced abilities. He can do things he couldn't before.

But, the GP comment referred to "quality of life" which is innately difficult to measure objectively. It's possible that he was able to do those things but it caused him enough irritation to do them that he avoided using it (like CPAP often is for example), or that the things it enabled him to do weren't sufficient to warrant feeling improved. My father has limited mobility, but no interest in playing mario kart or adjusting an air filter, and there's very little in his home that he has or would want to be automated. Anything that could be my mom or another family member usually takes care of anyway, even if it's still something he could do himself as he's rather tech illiterate.

So, in this scenario, given my father's age, the risks involved in such a major surgery for his age, and his personal inclinations, the very same additional capabilities likely wouldn't be worthwhile in his opinion. Hence, the subjective experience of the objective changes are how you measure quality of life for this kind of operation.

if that's the case why do you care to read about his subjective experience, at all? isn't that the point of the comment inquiring about an independent review?

a good point, and one that highlights the fact that people are unironically relying on "objective"/"subjective" distinctions in this thread - when this division is not necessarily a straightforward one in neurology or philosophy/language. putting a neurological implant in someone's brain doesn't strike me as an act that immediately clarifies this issue, to put it mildly. but this technology is still in its infancy. thus, the more people to "review" it, the better... doesn't mean the benefits they are giving people or the work has to stop... it just doesn't mean some skepticism isn't warranted either...

yes, quality of life is a very difficult thing to measure objectively, because of the subjective component, as you state. are you under the impression the "reviews by independent experts" mentioned in the comment above the one you cited would only be meaningful if the person narrating their subjective experience was found to be outright lying? you are clearly familiar with some of the nuances, thus i'm not sure why you would not also be interested in independent reviews of the subject. his personal story is worth a lot, but it's not everything. i would think the more people reviewing it seriously, the more benefit to people like your father (and countless others)

Who is measuring the physical benefits? because based on this article it's no one... so again, we're taking one person's word for it... and it's very likely this person is contractually obligated to not disparage the company

it's not objective when there's only a single reporter and it's the subject

no before/after video, no third party report, there's nothing here but puffery... half the article goes on to promote robots

Because the subjective experience is the thing we actually care about.

Same reason you ask the users of any product for feedback. Sure, you can objectively see that they were able to click the register button, still doesn’t guarantee they came out of that experience wanting to use the product.

are you under the impression that the sole focus of an independent review as described in the root comment would be to investigate the personal veracity of "Participant 1"'s narration? do you alter course in your product because of single, particular user anecdote? i'm not sure what you think you are arguing against here...

If you don't trust the subject, he would most likely decline to participate in an independent review entirely.

In any case, just like the stock market, the fact he responded well does not guarantee someone else will.

What we need is more data, not a higher degree of confidence in this one point. An independent review would be nice to satisfy our curiosity, but it wouldn't add much to our understanding anyway.

He may be obligated not to say bad things, but he isn't obligated to say good things.

That seems entirely reasonable to me in this instance, yes

we don't have enough information to say that either, wouldn't be unusual to get free medical treatment in exchange for good press... and even without an explicit incentive there's a lot of implicit bias to not speak ill of someone that has hardware in your brain

this is why it's worthless without a third party review of conditions

He explains his expanded day to day functionality in the article