Read on Twitter
The Neuralink is scary, Black Mirror, science fiction cool. The short- and mid-term aims are clinical and technically really impressive. The long-term aims are nuts. In the launch demo yesterday, Musk said: the future is going to be weird. That's pretty spot on. https://twitter.com/ZFleischmann/status/1299700202929086465
This thread is just my current understanding of all of this, which is limited. If something here is inaccurate, please point that out (and provide sources!) so I can learn more. Also, don't take anything in here as fact. I'm an interested technologist, not a neuroscientist.
So there is existing technology that lets us interface with the brain, but it's pretty limited, expensive, and cumbersome. Here's a comparison between the Neuralink and the next most advance brain-computer interface technology, the Utah Array:
First, on the point of size. The Neuralink is 28mm x 8mm. About the size of 5 stacked US quarters. The Utah Array is 4mm x 4mm, which is maybe ~half the size of a US penny?
Second, on the point of fit. I think you would prefer to have a Neuralink. It replaces a piece of the skull and fits flush with the outer edge, where as the Utah Array has a component that sits outside the brain.
Third, on the number of electrodes. The Neuralink has 1,024 whereas the Utah Array has 100. I *think* more is better here. I *think* more electrodes means more incoming data from a localized region of the brain.
Here's all this comparison in a table
The big innovation here is the sensor and processor are a single unit. This is what makes it so the Neuralink can sit flush with the outer edge of the skull. The Utah Array has a very small sensor, but the processor sits on top of it, outside the skull.
There's a point to be made about external hardware too. The idea is that the Neuralink will run off your phone (though it doesn't yet). This is the external hardware necessary to run the Utah Array. It, uh, doesn't fit in your pocket as well ...
So the Neuralink is already a really big achievement compared to existing technology. It is already really cool, but the next phase of the Neuralink is where it starts to feel like science fiction.
The "short-term" goal of the Neuralink is to assist functionality in someone who is paralyzed.
I say "short-term," in quotes, because I don't have a sense of how far off this is.
I say "short-term," in quotes, because I don't have a sense of how far off this is.
Someone who has lost motor function due to a spine or neck injury could use 1-5 Neuralinks implanted in their skull to do things like interact with a computer or maneuver robotic tools. This is already technically possible: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/devices/paralyzed-individuals-operate-tablet-with-brain-implant
This just isn't possible *at scale*. The tooling that make this possible right now is too big and not exactly portable.
The Neuralink will (in the near-ish term) replace all this and open up a whole new sector of consumer tech that's powered by electrical signals from the brain
The Neuralink will (in the near-ish term) replace all this and open up a whole new sector of consumer tech that's powered by electrical signals from the brain
You need 1 Neuralink per region of the brain. Each implant will send signals to a secondary device that then commands the device you're trying to utilize (ie a tablet or a robotic arm or, hell, your Tesla)
Mid- to long-term, another really cool application is re-enabling motor function in someone who is paralyzed with a shunt for electric signals.
Shunts are used to bypass a blockage. If you have a blockage in an artery, surgeons can place a shunt to allow blood flow around the blockage.
A broken spine is effectively a blockage of the neural signals from your brain to the rest of your body.
A broken spine is effectively a blockage of the neural signals from your brain to the rest of your body.
With 3-4 Neuralinks embedded in the brain, you could send signals around an injury. Signals would get read by the Neuralinks and wirelessly transmitted to a secondary device on the other side of the injury, that then reproduces these signals, powering the rest of the body.
If you've lost the motor function of your legs due to a spinal injury, for instance, the installed Neuralinks could power a secondary device that reproduces the electric signals below your spinal injury, creating movement in the legs. You can effectively use your legs like normal
Musk's long-, long-term vision for Neuralink is to provide a brain-computer interface to everyone. This is the part that feels like Black Mirror. People are saying it's really far off, but it kind of seems like it might not be.
The short-term-ish use case is to implant Neuralinks to power tablets or robotic arms. You need a few implants installed in different regions of the brain. You need a device to process those signals and translate them into commands. Then you need devices powered by those commands
If you can do that in the near-ish term for someone who is paralyzed, then you can do that for anyone. Obviously, solving mobility and functionality for someone who is paralyzed is an incredible goal. But what is going to stop that from being adopted by consumer technology?
For example: if you can power your lights and appliances from your phone now and you will in the near-ish term be able to interact with your phone directly from your brain, then why can't you in the near-ish term power your lights and appliances from your brain?
I'll end with that question. If you got this far, thanks for reading! Again, I'm not an expert in any of this. Just interested and trying to understand it all myself. If you know more, then I would love for you to add your expertise where mine is (obviously) lacking.
Here are my sources:
First source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/elon-musks-neuralink-both-an-evolution-and-a-plan-for-radical-change/
First source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/elon-musks-neuralink-both-an-evolution-and-a-plan-for-radical-change/
