Neuralink 'Participant 1' says his life has changed

Why would you not go first? If you are blind it cannot be worse (well it can, but there are always risks).

My wife went through semi-expetimental therapy (at that time) for her MS. It was tough but ultimately a net benefit.

It all depends on what is at stake - I would consider Ozempic for some weight loss but prefer, for now, go for no sugar and moderate portions. This is not life changing for me so I indeed prefer people who will benefit way more from it to go first.

what therapy did your wife go through?

That's funny because Ozempic can blind you.

It’s associated, not causal, and likely explained by diabetes as a 3rd variable. (Diabetes can blind you and glp-1 drugs are treatments for diabetes.)

Super uncertain, and, if the effect exists, it's tiny --- huge numbers of people have been taking these drugs for many years. Meanwhile, we know with certainty that T2D can blind you, and we know mechanistically why that happens. If you're at T2D risk, NAION would be a really dumb reason to avoid GLP-1s.

It's a brain chip. How do you feel about being blind and paralyzed? Or comatose? Or dead? How about never-ending pain or constant bright flashes? What if they go bankrupt, and something happens to the implant?

Brain surgery isn't exactly an industry where "move fast and break things" is an acceptable approach - especially when you are the patient. Considering Neuralink's historical record, going first sounds like a horrible idea to me.

> If you are blind it cannot be worse

Holy moly.

The blindness is linked to rapidly changing A1C in diabetics and is a small increase in overall risk.

If you're just using it for weight loss and aren't diabetic, you have no increase in risk.

This is also why your weight loss should be monitored by a doctor.

From a game theory perspective it's very rare for it to make sense to be the first to try new medical interventions.

Counterpoint: the main motivation for installing brain chips is to be able to do those things to subordinates.

Also seizures, personality changes and myriad forms of cognitive impairment.

The 20 years of US adventures in Iraq & Afghanistan led to many traumatic brain injury cases analyzed by modern medicine, and the chronic symptoms are worse than one might think.

It's important that no one can accidentally sideload misinformation.

No different than checking an ID at the airport, really.

Mate thats not game theory its common sense.

I think it was obvious they meant the condition of blindness cant't be worse.

No, that's obviously not obvious, since the person you responded to thought otherwise.

> Considering Neuralink's historical record

What historical record? This article is about their first human participant.

They had a rocky path to that first human patient, and even the first human participant has had a rocky journey with it, with many electrodes failing soon after implanted.

I guess I don't have a similar thought process as someone who thinks going no sugar is the right way to achieve weight loss.

The reason you might think twice about going first is for that exact reason, there are risks. Plenty of blind people would prefer to stay as they are than be left worse off to a greater degree after undergoing the implant.

How would you go for weight loss then? This is calories in - calories out.

And as for which state one wants to be in, this is a matter of personal choice. I know that I will commit suicide right after I get a diagnosis of, say, Alzheimer's (after cleaning up my stuff). If I went blind and had a reasonable chance to get back to sight, then I would also go for it, weighing the risks.

It all boils down to what someone perceives as "better"

How do you feel about not having THE sense that defines your whole life? This is a matter of personal choice and weighing risks vs your life as it is.

Nobody is forcing anybody to have the chip - my question was about the reasons behind not taking it for someone who is blind, as a matter of curiosity. It is obvious that everyone will react differently.

As I mentioned, my wife went for that and it was quite a ride initially. You do not want to be on the witnessing side of such treatments but I respect her choice despite the risks.

Yes, this is what I meant.

The very early form of TYSABRI

Vision is not the sense that defines the whole life of a blind person.

Of course, this is why I gave the counterexample of the case where it would be.

One cannot measure calories out (other than deducing it from calories in and weight change), which is a complex function of diet, metabolism, and a host of other factors.

As for the rest--your other posts implicitly assume that everyone else shares your choices and priorities--and if not then they aren't relevant. (BTW, there is strong evidence showing neither you nor anyone else knows what they would do after receiving such diagnoses.)

Of course your statement is false? Strange.

> One cannot measure calories out (other than deducing it from calories in and weight change), which is a complex function of diet, metabolism, and a host of other factors.

Sure, but when you eat sugar in several forms and overeat generally, you statistically get fatter. This works the other way round too. There are myriads of specific cases on the sides of the bell curve but the solution for the everyday Joe is to eat less, more healthily. Practicing sports helps too, but not so much (it is important for other health reasons)

> As for the rest--your other posts implicitly assume that everyone else shares your choices and priorities--and if not then they aren't relevant.

Wow, where do you get that from? The main point of asking questions here is not to be a troll and wait for internet fights but to get interesting insights from others. You may want to slow down with the pitchforks and such statements.

> (BTW, there is strong evidence showing neither you nor anyone else knows what they would do after receiving such diagnoses.)

Or not. You also have people who prepare for that in advance, with a clear decision path. I have, and have no doubts taht I will go for that having evidenced suffering in other people. Not everyone contacts a company such as Dignitas to make sure things are organized. Not everyone discusses with the funeral house details about their death at 45, not everyone has a "what to do when I die" booklet with key information (financial and how to de-smart the house :)). Not everyone gave a deeper thought about designing a kill-switch device that would poison them in case they are incapacitated.

Not everyone is like you so I would not be that fast in making such radical statements.

> Sure, but when you eat sugar in several forms and overeat generally, you statistically get fatter. This works the other way round too.

I wrote about calories OUT.

In respect for dang I won't comment or engage further.

It's a lifelong change and whatever the state of the first release is, chances are in 5 years time there'll be a better version and everything is safer.

1 + 1 = 2 is common sense, but it’s also math.

Experimental procedure on volunteer is experimental. More news at 11.

I can imagine some rather catastrophic negative outcomes from novel new brain surgery techniques, even if the blindness were not somehow made worse.

For weight loss I go via a calorie deficit, but still consume all macronutrients, I wouldn't cut out sugar as I would feel pretty rubbish. I'd go less on the sweets like chocolate and lollies but I wouldn't completely cut out sugar as its important.

> Sure, but when you eat sugar in several forms and overeat generally, you statistically get fatter. This works the other way round too. There are myriads of specific cases on the sides of the bell curve but the solution for the everyday Joe is to eat less, more healthily. Practicing sports helps too, but not so much (it is important for other health reasons)

Absolutely the issue is overeating, but you don't safely achieve good energy balance or even a calorie deficit by cutting out all forms of sugar.

You could increase your fat intake and still stay the same weight.

It's okay to reduce your sugar intake, or intake of simple sugars but removing sugar altogether isn't the right way to go.

"I" think was obvious

And you are wrong, as noted. If you mean "it was obvious to me", that's a different matter ... but it's also irrelevant.

You're in this subthread:

> Why would you not go first?

But then it's also obvious that this is an irrelevant argument because other things very much can get worse. It's not like becoming blind would be the primary concern of a non-blind person getting a brain implant.

What I did for myself was not exactly scientific.

I realized I overeat, mostly because I stay at the table longer with family and friends (hey, I am French! :)) and I eat too much before I realize that I am full. Or even realize I am full but what the heck, this nicely looking petit four is inviting.

So I decided to follow the JEFH approach (Just Eat Fucking Half). I did not change a lot in what I eat but mistly how much. I do not drink any sodas (we are trained in France since kindergarden to only drink water at meals) and getting rid of the sweet parts was not that of an effort. I removed most of the unhealthy stuff, though I was not eating much of that anyway (all kind of sausage and hams we have here, and heavily processed food).

I also do some sport, but not to lose weight.

I lost 16 kg effortlessly, and now need more effort to lose 15 more - this is going to be significantly more difficult. The main blockage is my lazyness and lack of self-control (and possibly some ilness I have but that would be too easy to put everything on that).

I have everything to succeed: a healthy eating country, money for any kind of food I need, a very high quality enterprise restaurant where I eat healthy food (and cheap), a place where I can easily practice sports.

So yes, I do not follow a strictly scientific method, but rather some common sense and reasonable self restrain. Ah, I also have a wife that I am afraid of and who watches with a stern eye what I am eating.

My brain defines my whole life. Risking damaging the thing that defines everything I love, hate, have interest in, or remember is a pretty high bar. Blind people live pretty rich, full, independent lives, even if they have to forgo many things the sighted enjoy. I don't know if I would say the same for the severely brain damaged.

>> As for the rest--your other posts implicitly assume that everyone else shares your choices and priorities--and if not then they aren't relevant.

>Wow, where do you get that from?

I mean, right off the bat, you started with "If you are blind it cannot be worse" which is a pretty big assumption that being blind is so horrible and makes your life so worthless, that risking your life to reverse it seems like the obvious choice.

@crote wrote

> How do you feel about being blind and paralyzed?

To what I replied

> How do you feel about not having THE sense that defines your whole life?

→ this meant "how would you fel if you lost THE sense that defines your life, such as loding your sight when you are an artist" (for example). The idea is that what is a disaster depends on people (this is what I meant in This is a matter of personal choice and weighing risks vs your life as it is.).

In other words - losing a sense can be so devastating that you can risk much more for the (large, tiny, incalculable?) risjk of losing even more. Everyone is free to decide.

Hope this is more clear now

Yes, I was not clear here (I clarified in another comment) - I meant if you are blind, you cannot get "blinder".

There are other risks of course, which I addressed in the comments (basically, it is for an individual to decide whether they want to accept risks, also in the case where the risks are not quantifiable)

It isn't always pragmatic to account for the 5% of people who misinterpret what is being said or who aren't able to contextualize because they are stupid. We've all misinterpreted obvious things before. It isn't that big of a deal.