I work with a lot of disabled people and while obviously my sample size isn't large enough to write a paper, the ones capable of understanding consent all think this is a terrible, terrible idea.
There is actually a strong feeling in much of the deaf/heard of hearing community against cochlear implants because it is "othering" them in the process.
Which is stupid because they were "othered" by their physical disability and are being returned to the fold by having that ability restored.
Also it's a minority of deaf egoists who think they're special because they lack normal capacity and turned their disability into their personality, not some strong feeling in much of the community.
I lack the eloquence to describe the look on her face when she found out about it. But her answer was, "Oh, great, so I can trade in the problems I have now for new ones we can't even accommodate yet!"
Being disabled in some area really makes you think “I had better take care of what I have left” rather than “what are my options for modifying and upgrading what is left?”
Yeah, everyone would. PrimeCorp stock would go through the roof, not least of all because of their delicious nutrition bars. So much value would be delivered to the shareholders, can you imagine it!?
It's not that serious, we're just cracking jokes on the internet. Of course we'd all pick walking, even if we suddenly got an insatiable hunger for delicious, satisfying PrimeCorp nutrition bars. The nutrition bar with legs!
Do you think someone in a wheelchair so much lesser a person that you automatically assume free access to their brain is adequate payment for legs? People who can't walk still have lives, and agency, and choices. This would be a choice, for everyone. You would choose walking because you've never had to compensate for losing it.
This kind of emerging technology preys upon those people's hopes of living a normal life again. I just recently saw a YouTube video of people who got implants to cure blindness (with a glasses-like device to bridge the gap) and once the company that produces them went out of business they ceased support for their units that were inevitably going to fail as all hardware does.
Elon Musk and Neuralink is no different. They're rushing this tech to market and they know it. High likelihood of it becoming abandonware, but improving the lives of their patients was never the goal. Making money is the goal.
The fucking-people-over part is NOT a necessary part of the tech! You can have tech that gets stably supported with adequate safeguards in place to make sure patients get everything they need to keep them safe and working for the rest of their life--safeguards enforced by government mandates. Those are policy issues that we already know how to solve, we just don't, because we let tech companies do whatever the hell they want.
78 developers across the globe. No one can agree on direction and half drop out in 3 months to fork it. Several forks happen and they all fail, and a few survive but become mutually incompatible.
You download a poorly tested update via brain apt-get and lose the ability to use the letter k.
A successful fork takes off and everyone uses it but then IBM buys it. Now big blue owns your brain and charges insane licenses fees.
There’s already a company doing this with fall protection vests (airbags for cyclists basically). If you stop paying it stops working.
If I was a CEO personally I would not want my company to make a product intended to stop working and increase the risk of serious injury or death if the customer stops the subscription, but I’m not a super smart tech guy so I’m sure it’ll work out fine for them.
I don't feel like advertisements in general are that much different. Constant assault, every medium, weaponized brain washing. I bet that given a cue you could perfectly hum the tunes of at least a hundred or so jingles that you weren't aware of infesting you brain.