In the future direct interfacing between the brain and technology seems likely. The rudimentary technology has already been demonstrated and Musk’s company is working on an implant meant to be a commercial product. My question is about how you see the interface eventually working. In particular I am curious about what the advantage of an implant is.

From the demonstrations I’ve seen things like typing, moving cursors, ect can be achieved with sensors applied to the body externally like an fmri skullcap or a neckband that reads vibrations in the vocal cords. External sensors are much safer to apply than a brain implant, they can be replaced much more easily if they malfunction, and they can be upgraded. I have read an article that said there are advantages to implants for people with medical issues like paralysis because the implant can offer feedback providing a more “normal” experience and interacting with specific nerves gives more precise control and less lag time. For medical applications like restoring lost function that makes the risk of surgery make sense. For the average person what advantages do implants offer over external sensors that make the risks of brain surgery worth it?

  • Bimfred@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Why are you bringing up Musk? I fail to see how Neuralink is the killing blow to the very concept of brain-computer interfaces. Your bias is showing.

    It’s true that current BCIs can’t do what I outlined as their potential benefits. Hence, why they’re potential. The technology still needs to develop before those potential benefits can be realised. Personally, I look forward to that day.