Confused me for a second, because I just saw this about growing teeth, which is aiming for reaching market in 2030, which is relatively soon. So hopefully you’ll be able to see that before people start shoveling dirt at you.

While that’s true, this isn’t a specific engineering problem. You need to grab a single cell from each relevant subcluster of neurons in the spinal cord, spatially record the exact positioning, send it off to have RNA seq. done, sample all of the subclusters of the target area, spatially record exact positioning, send it off to have RNA seq done, resample based off of RNA seq data, begin axon regrowth of a single subcluster, and then repeat after every growth cycle to ensure the targeting is holding.

You can improve RNA sequencing machines to reduce runtime, improve spatial tracking to make it easier to keep track of the anatomy, but without sci-fi advances in implant technology you can’t get around the sheer amount of procedural time requiring MD-PhDs and post docs to be involved in every visit.

One of the issues with medical technology is that we know far more about how the human body operates than we can control, so compared to biological structures our manipulation of biology at the cell specific level is relatively crude. I’m not saying tech won’t catch up, but it’s going to be ruinously involved for a very long time.

It’s a little grim, but there’s a standard SCI (spinal cord injury) guillotine that drops a weight with an angled wedge to cause a near perfectly replicable SCI. The mouse is sedated, but it’s not exactly a good time for the mouse.

But yeah, the alternative is testing on humans, which, I really don’t think we need a reminder on why that’s super illegal.

The difference though is that this treatment would require hundreds of hours of ongoing work from medical professionals for each treatment. What they did was use single cell RNA sequencing to determine which subpopulations of cells are supposed to connect and where, before stimulating cell growth and guiding each RNA mapped subpopulation to where it’s roughly supposed to go. That’s one thing for anatomically complete sub-millimeter spinal cord injuries in mice, but a massive endeavor for human spinal cords.

If you’ve seen the bioengineered cancer treatments where researchers grow immune cells to target a single individual’s tumor, the amount of specialized work that goes into that pales to what current technology would require for this sort of spinal regeneration, and that’s for relatively simple small scale lesions. Multiple lesions or large scale cell death could result in attempting to selectively guide millions of microscopic axons in neat clusters for over a foot.

I wouldn’t be surprised if insurance companies refused to pay for cell regrowth, and instead went for implants that are comparatively much simpler to install and modify in brain-computer interfaces that skip over the damage. This is a great advancement and does open the door for recovering from spinal cord damage, but this is one of those treatments that people are going to get because they need to fill FDA trials and won’t charge, or because the patient is filthy rich.

Well, I mean we kinda are, capitalism and all that. There are thousands of authors of Patreon, Kofi, and the like that you can pay to write you the fanfiction you want. Further, if you don’t know the provenance of a fanfic, how do you tell which ones are the copyright violation? The only way to do so is if you have records of its birth, especially as generative AI improves.

I’m not blind to the plight of creators here, but isn’t the issue that a machine can, in theory, out compete the authors at their own style? If a random human can write Stephen King’s style better than Stephen King, it’s forgiven because that took time, effort, and talent, where a machine doing it alarms us. No author has ever been sued because they read a book and were influenced in their writing, unless they outright plagiarized without attributing. I just think that there needs to be a significant frame shift, since artificially limiting generative AI to protect the current business model instead of allowing it to reshape how people produce and consume media isn’t realistic. The issue is figuring out how creators are still compensated for their work.

People are already building small generative AI projects, so there’s no containing it, and it’s only going to grow.

Yeah, I agree with all of their points except for SpaceX, which has been an unequivocal success that doesn’t deserve to be painted with the same brush Elon is. They revolutionized space flight, broke into the national security launch industry that was entirely captured by the United Launch alliance, and stand to obsolete the (93 billion dollar!) Space Launch System the moment the Starship is approved for commercial launches.

Dozens of Falcon 9’s exploded while testing them and especially while attempting to land and reuse boosters, so the Starship failure was all but expected. I hate Elon Musk too, but SpaceX is arguably the most successful aerospace company at the moment. Were NASA allowed full control of their money, I think it’d be better, but as it is the viability of many of their future projects hinges on SpaceX.

I get what you’re saying, but what I was trying to get at was how a lot of these shiny cool things lately seem to be a way to easily package unwanted things. Google’s new AI integration openly reads and analyses everything you store and write in Google services, to assist you. People would be up in arms about slapping microphones around in public, but a public noise cancellation system that requires dozens of microphones constantly listening is just really cool.

There are easier ways, but the fact that it’s cool sidesteps almost all the resistance. Same way facial recognition cameras covering the UK is talked about as method to only catch criminals, not something that tracks everyone that steps outside their home.

I mean, in this case all they need to do is attach data storage, and suddenly they have a massive data set of natural human conversation to sell to whoever’s training AI.

I believe in you. You can do anything you set your mind to.

Copyright law has been such a disaster for so long, while clearly being wielded like a blunt weapon by corporations. I can see the existential threat that generative AI can pose to creators if it becomes good enough. And I also am aware that my dream of asking an AI to make a buddy cop adventure where Batman and Deadpool accidentally bust into the Disney universe, or remake the final season of Game of Thrones, is never gonna be allowed, but there’s honestly a huge amount of potential for people to get the entertainment they want.

At any rate, it seems likely that they’re going to try and neuter generative AI with restrictions, despite it really not being the issue at hand.

Right, but would that be pursued if a human did the same thing? Because there’s a vast amount of fanfiction churned out by human hands, and it’s safe as long as they don’t try to monetize it. Seems like most of the fear is the existential threat that it might suddenly begin writing good stories, and destabilize the entire writing industry as people can just ask for exactly the sort of story they want. For free. (But not actually, because corporations will own all the AI and data).

Yeah, in academia getting approval for primate research projects is a huge process where you need to clarify every aspect of the protocol, housing, care, and experimental operations to submit before the project can start. I’m less sure if it’s voluntary or required, but we had funding allocated for their retirement from the start. They’re smart enough and strong enough that I’d be terrified to work with unhappy and unwell primates.

Not that all research projects are have happy endings, but I don’t think corporate research has the same restrictions and oversight that academic research does, given that this even happened. I’m pretty accepting of the necessity of primate research models, but we should be doing everything we can to treat them as best we can. Withdrawing a subject from the experimental protocol should be preferred over letting an infection fester just because the implant is in the way. Just seems really poorly done on their part.

Well tell it to stop breaking all my stuff. This is bullying 😭

Yeah, what we were always missing after fleeing cable, was the ads that really made each show worth it.

Why can’t we just have nice things?

Yeah, I mean we’ve been working on brain implants of various stripes for a couple decades now, and they’re not the first to attempt motor cortex implants for paralyzed patients as a method to begin human trials, but the current state of the art for brain implants is honestly pretty… primitive. There’s no good way to avoid damaging neurons, so it’s mainly a focus on not causing too much damage while fine mapping and targeting has to be done on an individual basis.

Implants are hugely useful, and arguably the current state of the art treatment for several conditions (epilepsy and parkinsons), but we’re so far out from computer brain interfaces being useful for anything outside of dire medical needs that it’s kinda surprising they’re pushing ahead when they had so much trouble with their experimental subjects.

I worked in a brain imaging lab in college, and we had a couple of chimpanzees with brain implants that did daily research protocols. Bastards were better than me at the testing regimen, and other than some minor discomfort (water intake is restricted prior to the tests so that the gatorade reward was more attractive), they were large children that could tear your face off if they got angry. Once they got older, they would have surgery to remove the implants and retire to a primate ranch where they just got to live out the rest of their life. All of the grad students there had been working with the same chimps for years, so it’s a little alarming Neuralink had so many issues.

It doesn’t exactly engender confidence.

Why does every cool innovation have to have an immediately applicable shitty implication 😭

*screaming intensifies*

“Whoops, turned it up instead of down, one sec.”

BANG

It’s been a while, but I’m confused. I never said anything like that, but that is essentially the government’s point of view. Erotica requires one to be 18 to see, whether written, drawn, or photographed. Depictions of sex and nudity either ban everyone under 17 ( or 17 and under for NC-17 ratings), or expect parents to restrict those under 17 in the case of television as it can’t be moderated (for now).

At any rate, I just wanted to respond and clarify despite the better part of a month passing.

homepages of major porn sites is unique compared to the pre-internet days.

It’s really not. You just weren’t exposed to it and think it’s new. The only change is the quantity, not the depravity. Marquis de Sade, the origin of the word sadist produced a significant amount of incredibly depraved erotic works back in the 1700’s, and he was not unique.

To your second point, should their first exposure be to porn? Of course not, but developing, evolving and maturing is done by exploring, not by sitting in a cave and generating knowledge from scratch, even if you have an equally amateur friend. That’s how people get hurt because they have no idea what they’re doing. If they want to see what’s out there, let them. Trying to ban everyone from sexual content until 18 is a uniquely modern take.

Not to mention, we’re far too uncomfortable with the topic to have their first exposure be anything but porn, since sex ed is all drawings and awkward anatomy. And childbirth videos. Since I was a kid myself, all I’ve seen is moral panic that wants nothing more than to simply shut the blinds and pretend that there’s nothing there.

I mean, why? What is the unprecedented threat?

And I think you have a misunderstanding of how isolated teenagers were from sexual content before the internet, magazines weren’t exactly hard to get. Even before then, we’ve literally been making porn in every form of media since we were painting on cave walls.