Talk:Neuralink/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nanotechnology?

Is there any good reason to reference nanotechnology in this article? I haven't seen it referenced in any primary source on Neuralink. Is it just very obvious that they would need to use nanotechnology for this kind of thing? Otherwise it seems kind of irrelevant and just kind of thrown in there as some kind of fun fact. 5ives (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

no, it was hype. took it out. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hype

There is also going to be all kinds of pressure to add hype about this and speculation about what products the company might develop. We know nothing now. Everything is speculation based on the WSJ reporting and people inferring things from other stuff that Musk has said. Stuff that Musk has said, can go in the article about Musk. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

ok, I see what you mean, thanks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Tübingen

About this, what in the world is so special that among all the zillions of labs studying BCI, that this one should be singled out? UNDUE and promotional of that lab. It ~might~ make sense to have some general discussion of BCI research here but it would be entirely OR as nobody knows what the company is actually working on, and there is a WL to the brain–computer interface article for people to go read about what is going on in that field. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, thanks for the comment. I understand now the issue with promotion. However, I removed the project page, and there is only internal WP citations. Also, the project is not about BCI. It is one of a few ongoing researches (if not the only one) trying to read and write to the brain.Zombehpedia (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting to talk! Two things. First, everything in WP needs to be reliably sourced -- ideally from an indpendent source to show that the content is what we call "WP:DUE" -- , and secondly, this is content that perhaps should go in the BCI article. There is no particular relationship between the Tübingen program and Neuralink is there? Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The technical goal of the project (besides AI+human merge aka H+), as I understand it is to develop easily implantable BCI in the meaning that it shouldn't require serious and risky surgical intervention. Basically (If I understand it right) they claim that they won't remove part of your skull in order to implant a grid. To state the obvious it would allow to achieve a high throughput between brain and computer available for regular people. Dk14 58.136.94.54 (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Some bloggers...

this edit and the edit-warred restoration by a different IP here violate WP:CRYSTALBALL and are WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a site for speculation and is not part of the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Musk's timeframes

Jytdog partially reverted my edit about Musk's planned timeframes from Neuralink here, saying "time frames are WP:CRYSTALBALL nonsense at this stage. there is no point writing projections or refutations of them". I disagree. I read WP:CRYSTAL before making the edit, and it says:

"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. [...] Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view."

The content I introduced was referenced, and contained opinions from Musk and respected neuroscientists; I also tried to make sure the content was unbiased and phrased as neutrally as possible. I think it belongs in the article. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you please explain why this is encyclopedic content? Something that will matter 5 or even 10 years from now? Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well basing what content to include on editor's predictions of what will matter 10 years from now certainly would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, but for what it's worth, I can easily imagine a "History" section in the article in 10 years time beginning "Musk originally planned to create a BCI for severe brain injures by 2021; despite widespread skepticism, Neuralink's first BCI was released in 2020" or conversely a "Criticsm" section 20 years from now reading "The company has been criticised for failing to reach its goals on time—Musk aimed in 2017 to market BCIs at able-bodied people in the 2020s, a target which was widely thought to be unrealistic at the time, and indeed it was not until 2031 that the __ was released."

As for why it's "encyclopedic content", I think that's a rather vague term but the CRYSTAL passage I cited above mentions that articles can include "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field". — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but would you please answer the question? Your response is about gossip ("oh he said X and it was so stupid" or "oh he said X and he was right!") This is not substantial nor of any long term importance. There is a media circus around this, as there is around everything Musk does. He makes wild predictions, people say he is crazy. (he is not a reliable source for these sorts of predictions as the Verge ref you cited mentions... so this really does fail even the letter of CRYSTAL). But none of that matters. What matters is what actually happens. He has started the company to build BCI for medical and then enhancement purposes. We will see what actually happens (e.g. when there are scientific papers about actual developments) and when things actually happen, we can add content about them. WP is not part of the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What part of the question do you think I did not address? I answered both questions you posed and cited quotes from policy. Your personal opinion on Musk does not matter, and neither does your view on what is significant – what reliable sources discuss decides what is significant, and they are discussing Musk's plans. You have not cited one policy or guideline (or even an essay) in your favour – you mentioned WP:CRYSTAL, but I have pulled out multiple quotes from it that show it actively encourages content based on reliably sourced predictions (ad hominem attacks on Musk do not mean he is not a notable figure in an article about his own company!). Please quote from any one of Wikipedia's plethora of guidelines one passage which supports your argument. Otherwise you are just using argument by assertion. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am citing WP:NOT - the goal of WP is to teach - to provide the public with enduring, accepted knowledge, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Not to convey gossip nor transient news that will mean nothing four years from now or ten years from now. Please answer -- what is the long-term significance of Musk's current time projections and people calling them ludicrous? (in other words, why is this encyclopedic? To ask another way, why will this be important four years from now or 10 years from now?) This is just media circus trivia as far as I can see. You have not written anything to show it isn't UNDUE gossip/trivia/news. That is what I am looking for. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any requirement in any policy for article content to have "long-term significance" (WP:NOT makes no mention of it). I have tried to explain why I think that it could have long-term significance anyway (contributes to Neuralink's reputation, shows responses to the first thorough report of Neuralink's ambitions etc.), but one can't predict the future so I don't see how anyone could possibly assert that something will have long-term significance for certain. A plethora of WP articles include content that will most certainly need to be completely rewritten in a few years – Sherlock (TV series)#Future, a section of a GA which will undoubtedly look completely different in a year's time, sprung to mind first. Probably more relevant is Existential risk from artificial general intelligence#Timeframe, several long paragraphs about (reliably sourced) predictions which could be seen as only significant in the short term ("25% chance that AGI will arrive before 2030" – why will this matter in 2030 when either AGI has or hasn't arrived?).

The Verge source quotes "University of Chicago neuroscientist Sliman Bensmaia" and "Chad Bouton, vice president of advanced engineering and technology at the Feinstein Institute of Medical Research" – these people are not "gossip[ing]"; they are discussing the future of neuroscience. As for your claims of "trivia", well that's your opinion and my opinion is that it is non-trivial (to argue "this is not significant because it is trivia" is circular, as "trivia" is a synonym of "insignificant"; "media circus" has the same problem as it refers to media covering topics which someone perceives to be insignificant, so it is just another way of arguing "it is not significant because I say so"). WP:UNDUE requires that "each article [...] fairly represent[s] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", which does not justify omitting content based on one editor's opinion (UNDUE is solely about how much to write about various opinions on a topic, not about whether to cover the topic at all). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The company coming into existence is a fact. What it was created to do, is a fact. These things will never go away. Things like how long Musk predicts today it take them to do it, how many scientists think that is ridiculous today, how much money and time it might take, whether their products will even work, this is all airy fairy trivia CRYSTALBALL stuff. I did not deny that there is a media circus - there are plenty of people who are happy to give their opinions about all kinds of trivia and plenty of sources recording that. There are entire articles about celebrities and pop culture, filled with trivia and sourced to twitter and TMG and similar gutter sources. Articles about serious topics should not have gossip and trivia and meaningless CRYSTALBALL projections in them. You have not said anything about why this matters. You have undermined your argument by making analogies with pop culture trivia. And this is nothing like timeframes on the AI thing, where an entire field is thinking through its development. This is one guy talking about one company (apparently ridiculously, which is apparently what he tends to do when it comes to time projections). Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If your standard for content is "things [that] will never go away", these predictions meet those criteria – it will always be true to say "In 2017, Musk said ... and commentators responded ..." Whether you consider a topic to be "serious" is not relevant – every Wikipedia article should be held to the same standard (certainly there are articles whose sole sources are tweets, but they should be sent straight to AFD). I have not used "gutter sources" – I used the LATimes and Verge (and would like to add MIT Technology Review as well). Also irrelevant is whether Musk's claims are "ridiculous": Forbes considers him the 21st most powerful person on the planet, which I think makes his opinion quite significant. I am not saying it is more important than speculation on AI, but I would say it is as important to an article on Neuralink as those AGI predictions are to an article on AI.

You have still not quoted anywhere in WP:NOT that backs up your point. Please point me to a passage that supports your argument. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't mis-state my perspective, which you do in several ways above. With respect to your request, I have pointed to several parts of NOT and NPOV that reflect the community consensus I am trying to communicate to you. The policies and guidelines aren't some kind of law, and this is not a court of law where prooftexting is relevant. There are things we can do as editors; it doesn't mean that we should. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologise if I've somehow missed previous references to it, but this is the first I've heard you mention NPOV. I have also yet to hear anything more specific than WP:CRYSTAL. Until you provide me with quotes from the guidelines that illustrate your point, I just don't understand your argument. It seems like you're citing the names of policies and then describing your own opinions on the topic, which are different to what the policies actually say. I honestly do not understand how you went from WP:NOT to "the goal of WP is to teach" or the requirement of asserting "long-term significance". — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

UNDUE is part of NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough; my apologies. We're clearly not going to agree on this so I want to find a third opinion. WP:3O doesn't seem very active but I've been bold and posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience; I hope the wording seems fair to you. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks that was a good idea. And neutrally executed too. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Although I can concur that some of these references aren’t stellar due to lack of verifiable research for a relatively new organization, in what way is this article from MIT considered a low quality source? Most importantly, you’ve mentioned that the time frame stated by Musk himself is more or less speculation but the revert you’ve made seems otherwise contradictory to that. The key point I want to make here is that there is skepticism surrounding the project with that statement substantiated by examples directly stated by that reference which was previously mentioned.CubeSats4U 08:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say they all were low quality! :) I wrote "Some low quality refs as well"... Yep I read your edit. It teed up his projection to knock it down. As discussed above, all that is media circus triva. In the long term it doesn't matter. What will matter is if and when the company produces something and it works or doesn't work. There is going to be a lot of breathless hype and hot air huffing and puffing over the next few years and none of it will matter. This is a startup with no published science and there will be almost nothing encyclopedic to say about it for a pretty long time. (btw I am just loving the categories below "unknown importance California article" etc. Exactly.  :) Jytdog (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hm. So you restored. As I noted above I considered nominating this for deletion since it was clear from day 1 that any time this company farted, the blogosphere would light up and people would rush here to add a bunch of echo chamber hot air about what was said by X and what person Y thought about that, ad nauseum. It has begun. It will continue to happen. Not sure what the best way to handle is. Perhaps an RfC on scope. So far I have just been addressing it case by case. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Bilorv and Jytdog: Hi guys/gals/cats. I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. I'm also a BSc. Psych graduate (MSc hopeful) and have a pretty focused interest in neuroscience, so I do kind of geek out about the science and keep my eye on stuff like this. I'm a longtime Wiki user as well. Personally, I appreciate Musk's relative bravado and ambition compared to academia, and think it does great things for drumming up interest in the sciences, and Neuralink is definitely exciting. That said, I don't feel comfortable with a page that is essentially based on a patent and media hype being created around a problem which represents a very serious obstacle in neuropharmacology- that is, the Blood Brain Barrier. If we look at this source, for example, we see that the suggested approach involves a noninvasive "neural lace" introduced through the jugular vein- but in order to cover any appreciable cortical "real estate", the device would have to penetrate the BBB or at least be designed in such a way that electrostimulation is precise enough to reliably and consistently reproduce motor output through electrostimulation alone (without addressing a classical problem). The BBB presents a fundamentally important obstacle, as it is essential in protecting the brain from harmful extracerebral molecules. So as someone who has studied issues in neuropharmacology and neurophysiology, my educated opinion is that this article should ultimately be a redirect to the relevant section on the Elon Musk page, as Neuralink does not currently represent a company that has notably/tangibly impacted the fields of neurophysics or neurorehabilitation through any concrete research or prototype that overcomes a core challenge in drug/treatment delivery to the CNS from the blood stream, until this approach is validated through a proof-of-concept preclinical study (at the very minimum) or a working prototype. If you need any further clarification, you can ask me (and I'll try to dig up sources for you), or you can approach someone else on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience, as there are people there with more credentials and theoretical knowledge than my own. I just wanted to give my input. Cheers! Di4gram (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you and i are on the same page with regard to keeping the article minimal, at most. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Merging this article to the relevant section on the Elon Musk page makes sense, since the content here is nothing more different from the content on the other page, regardless of its current and near future notability. Perhaps we should consider a merge/move discussion? CubeSats4U 08:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am not going to read all that came before me. I am just here to voice my opinion.

The section on Musk's personal page should be shortened and the Neuralink page kept separate. Musk's personal page is his personal page. Neuralink is the business page. They are separate entities even though they do have overlap (as most businesses/inventions/owners do).Kellymoat (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that Neuralink should remain a separate page, but after Di4gram's comments I don't strongly dislike the idea of merging it to Elon Musk. However, I still think that there should be a section in some relevant Wikipedia article discussing the timeframes Musk has proposed for Neuralink, and responses to this; I think the section created by CubeSat4U would be a very good addition, or we could add back my edits. @Di4gram and Kellymoat: what are your opinions on including the criticism of Musk's stated ambitions for the company? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The "timeframe", as well as any other issue, needs to adhere to WP Guidelines. There is nothing wrong with stating "Musk wants AI to take over the world by the year by the year 2012, which means he needs to invent a time machine first. If you are reading this, he failed." But we can't go too far into rumors and Twitter-type postings. It is no different than the Amber Heard information that brought me to the Musk article. Yes, they went on a date, but how is it important enough to be included in in an encyclopedia. Kellymoat (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how I feel about it, as it is sort of macroscopic guessing about a constantly evolving field. My gut reaction to unexplained timeframes is "why isn't it already done?". Especially having some knowledge of the specific hurdles his team will have to cross, I err on the conservative side about any listing any kind of timeframes on this article (no matter who publishes them). If it were on his own page, I wouldn't have a problem with the timeline- we publish campaign promises on politicians' articles without much worry. Again, I will kind of reiterate that this page seems premature- the company hasn't had any measurable impact, other than generating speculation. Di4gram (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Neuralink's goal of avoiding existential risk

It's pretty obvious that Neuralink's goal is to avoid the existential risk of artificial general intelligence. It's talked about in the Wait But Why article, and Elon Has talked about it before. Here's a quote from the article.

We’re going to have the choice of either being left behind and being effectively useless or like a pet—you know, like a house cat or something—or eventually figuring out some way to be symbiotic and merge with AI. A house cat’s a good outcome, by the way.

I was accused of "larding this with science fiction" in an edit summary when someone removed what I wrote about that. There's an article on the existential risk of artificial general intelligence, and it's not in the context of science fiction. If you think it's just science fiction, fair enough, but it's notable enough in a non-fictional context for Wikipedia. 5ives (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I should mention that the quote above is an actual quote of Elon Musk, not just a general quote from the article. 5ives (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah see section above about all the hype. This "existential risk" is part of the sci fi hype of all this. I know this is something the transhumanist whatever people Take Very Seriously but it not in the RW. The "human enchancement" bit is plenty. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've just read through the section above, but I still think what I added was notable. Elon is a co-founded and the CEO of the company. I don't think it will later come out that the goal of avoiding existential risk was fake. It's the main reason the company is being created. It seems to me that "enhancement" is just a positive side-effect. The various cool enhancements that their BCI may create aren't important compared to the main mission of avoiding existential risk. It's not about what transhumanists and non-transhumanists take seriously, its about what is considered to be notable on Wikipedia. 5ives (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The claim that there is an "existential risk" at all is what is ... dubious. It would be good to keep this article out of FRINGE territory as much as we can. If we focus on what the company is actually doing and has done rather than all the hot air in the blogosphere, it would be helpful toward that end. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to say something like "Musk's fear of the existential risk ..." As far as I can tell the company isn't really doing anything right now apart from hiring. But they aren't hiring for no reason. They have goals, and they need people for that. Every company does. Do you think it's not notable to talk about the company's mission in its article? 5ives (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know the quote is from Musk who is one of the worst hot air gusters around (as is discussed in the sources we are currently citing), which is one of the reasons why we are not going into the timeline projections. They do have goals - to cure some diseases and then try human enhancement. The first step is already extremely, brutally, graveyard-of-very-many-companies hard and they might not even get to the enhancement thing. Which is one reason why it is something we shouldn't belabor at this point. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think it's accurate to say that their goal is simply "human enhancement". I think if you asked Elon (the CEO, remember), and likely any of the other founders, what the long-term goal of the company was, they wouldn't say something simple like "we want to enhance humans", I think they, and especially Elon, would bring up existential risk. 5ives (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 5ives' edit and think it should be readded. The edit stated that WBW/Musk has commented on Neuralink being founded with the risk of AGI in mind, which is a fact, and this is not science fiction. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course you do. There are going to be people who want to maximalize the hot air that gets injected into this article. Musk also "said" the timelines that have been for the most part rejected above. You can put all that "Musk said X and people said Y" in the article about him if you get consensus for it there. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me but I was just offering my opinion, and trying to contribute to a consensus. I don't appreciate your snide assumption of my position on the subject. And for the record I don't think 2 people for, 2 neutral/leaning against and 1 against counts as "for the most part rejected". — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to keep having this argument. Merged to Elon Musk where folks can add all the stuff about him, that they like. Everybody wins. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And was reverted... so we need to let the formal process roll. Which is fine. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Formal merge discussion

The formal merge discussion is at Talk:Elon_Musk#Neuralink_merge_proposal. Please join there. thx Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The merge was decided against. However, this diff just continues the stuff discussed above. Things Musk says are things that Musk says. Things the company does, are things the company does. They are not the same. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Audacity please see the discussion above. This article is about a company, not science fiction and not about stuff that Musk says. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, after looking at the discussion, it seems that you are generally objecting to any sort of addition that is speculative, even if found in secondary sources. I don't think WP:CRYSTALBALL supports this. To quote:

Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.

In that light, could you explain how these two additions violate that guideline?

Musk described the idea as "a third, digital layer above the cortex that could work well and symbiotically with you.”

In March 2017, Musk told a crowd in Dubai, “Over time I think we will probably see a closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence.” He added that “it's mostly about the bandwidth, the speed of the connection between your brain and the digital version of yourself, particularly output."

Λυδαcιτγ 20:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

And again with your most recent revert of "pure speculation". As the quote above says quite clearly, well-sourced speculation is encyclopedic! Λυδαcιτγ 21:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for coming to talk. This article is about an actual company, about which we know almost nothing. It is apparently going to develop some kind of neurostimulation device that is says it will first try to use to treat diseases/conditions and then for human enhancement. There is almost nothing more we can say about Neuralink that is actually accepted knowledge (which is our mission, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, because the company is around a year old and has no actual prototypes much less products, and it won't have any for many years. The field it is working in, is hard.

I don't know how much you understand about biology generally, the brain in particular, or the reality of neurostimulation in the human brain, or if you are aware of how "neural lace" is described in the science fiction books, but the stuff about neural lace is pure science fiction today. This edit, where you described neural lace as "technology", was completely inappropriate and harmful. Technology is applied science, not science fiction. Why in the world would you mislead readers to believe that "neural lace" is something like an iPhone?

This article is not about Musk or his speculations. And Musk is infamous for making grandiose claims about his plans, and there are always tons of talking heads whose comments in response get published. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag where we publish speculation and what others say in response to speculation - we are not part of the blogosphere. This article could easily be 3 of 4 times longer than it is, if we reported all the various WP:FARTing where Musk said X and others said Y etc etc. No one knows what diseases/conditions they are actually going to target, or if they will even get that far. Please don't try to force this article down into the muck of all the babble echoing around the internet. We are an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your skepticism about whether the company will accomplish anything. But I disagree that such skepticism must lead us to avoid writing about the company's stated goals - which are inherently speculative and futuristic. If a reliable source says that Neuralink intends to treat depression and epilepsy, you may personally believe that goal to be completely infeasible, but that does not mean we should not state it in the article. You're right that "no one knows" whether they will succeed. But we're not claiming to know whether they will succeed - merely the simple fact that succeeding in that is a goal for the company.

To repeat what I said above: Speculation is not inherently un-encyclopedic. Λυδαcιτγ 21:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not skeptical about whether they will do anything. We simply don't know. I hope they do, it would be amazing. But that is not the point. The point is that the mission is to transmit accepted knowledge. You are making the (to me, terrible) argument that if gossip is reported, that fact (that people gossiped) is accepted knowledge. All I have to say to that is "ugh". Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That argument is literally true, no? The fact (that people gossiped) is accepted knowledge. The question is whether we should report on "gossip" or "speculation", and I think our policies say, yes, we should, if other sources are all reporting on those things!

To answer your question below, I use scare quotes to highlight your use of a particular term in a derogatory way, not because I don't think the term is factually applicable. Λυδαcιτγ 16:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Audacity is saying—I made some similar points about disagreeing with Jytdog's interpretation of CRYSTAL earlier—and think this was the best version of the article I have seen so far. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep I have pointed audacity to that discussion. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: So could you explain how WP:CRYSTALBALL supports your argument, or if it doesn't, what policy you're basing this argument about "speculation" on? Λυδαcιτγ 17:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a whole set of things, Audacity. The company (apparently) has huge ambitions. No one can know at this time what they will actually do. Musk has said lots of things speculating (and why in the world you put speculation in scare quotes is difficult to understand - please explain how this stuff is not actually speculation. Please) and others have responded with more speculation. Call it GOSSIP, call it CRYSTALBALL, call it UNDUE. It is a bunch of hot air blowing around the internet, and not what we do here in Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia and our mission is to transmit accepted knowledge to readers. We are not part of the blogosphere where speculations are blown around, and we are not a newspaper where the blow by blow of "Musk said X" and "Frank said X is baloney it is probably Y" and "Joe says YES X". It is a mission thing. Please explain why you believe that opening the door to all of that speculation and speculation about speculation serves the mission. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, this is one of zillions of articles in Wikipedia about companies. Every company does its best to generate hype and interest and many come or send people to WP to add that stuff here. Great swaths of WP are promotional garbage. I tend to work on medicine/health-based topics where we have high sourcing standards (and a clear hierarchy of sources to work with), and folks who work in those areas have a clear sense of the mission. So articles about companies and products in health/medicine tend to be ... better sourced and less hype-y than article about video games or software companies.

This is a medical device company. Medical device companies have well-known trajectories - which can stop at any point along the way if the idea doesn't work or they run out of money. They launch, they eventually create a prototype, they test it in animal models; they tweak the prototype and test it more. They eventually file for approval to start testing it in people. They test it in people. They try to get regulatory approval, and agreement from insurers to pay for it. They start to sell it. It does some good, and does some harm, and they make some money. Sometimes they solve important science or business model questions along the way. They publish their science along the way (unless they are Theranos-like) and others review that and discuss it in the biomedical literature (and those are the 2ndary sources we will cite and generate content from). At some point they might partner with or get acquired by another company (in the case of Neuralink maybe with Medtronic or Boston Scientific) or maybe they go it alone. Those are the milestones that we can expect.

This being Musk, and this being a transhumanist-related thing at its most ambitious, and this being another effort where Silicon Valley is trying to bring its ways to medicine (see Theranos for the success of that so far), we can expect tons of hype and blather that have nothing to do with reality or whether the company hits any of those milestones - and it has to go through those in order to do anything in the real world.

But there will be nothing significant to add to this article for a year or two, most likely. Biology eats software (and hardware). Biology is hard. And the human brain is the hardest biology of all. No hype, no speculation. Please. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I totally understand your argument. I'm even somewhat sympathetic to it. But I don't think it's backed up by our policies. Which is why I would like to hear which specific policies you are relying on. As I and others have said, CRYSTALBALL does not support your position but in fact seems to refute it. GOSSIP applies to gossip, which I don't think this page is (Musk has definitely made the statements attributed to him). And UNDUE is refuted by the fact that, as was pointed out several times in the merge discussion, this page is too short. There's nothing else to write about the company, so how can it be considered to have undue weight? Λυδαcιτγ 16:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And speaking of policies, let me encourage you to reread WP:OWN. Your constant reverting of the edits made to this page and refusal to compromise on the issues brought by me and other editors is, in my opinion, contrary to that policy. Λυδαcιτγ 16:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Your demand for some "specific language" is pretty much wikilawyering. UNDUE and NOT (including NOTNEWS, CRYSTALBALL, and GOSSIP) are the relevant policies.

There is simply a disagreement over the scope of this article based on the policies and guidelines, and I could just easily claim OWN with regard to your demand and initial edit warring to expand this with all of the Musk hullaballoo. I am not going there. This is not a behavioral dispute and I am disappointed to see an admin making this basic error.

As you can see there was discussion of this above, in which another editor posted good neutral notices at other boards, and those notices brought in a few people from other Wikiprojects, who look more at the big world and are not transhumanists or fans of Musk, and their feedback was mostly inline with what I have been saying.

The process question is what DR process to use to resolve the scope issue. I suppose we could go for some kind of RfC to set the scope of the article. What do you think of that? Or do you think some other DR process would be more useful? Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Human brain - computer interfaces

I would like to know: will we be able with the above-mentioned technology to think about something and then print it/play the video; or download data from our memory. How about saving/recording something that we see or say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.110.59.248 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to this article. See Help:Reference desk.Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Recently added parts

@Jytdog: Hi! The information on the founders of Neuralink that I added was taken directly from the Wait But Why article on Neuralink, a source already used on this page. The discussion on the nomination for deletion mentioned a lack of information on non-Elon Musk related topics regarding the company, so my edit was an attempt to expand the article with some useful information that sheds light on the background and capabilities of Neuralink's founders. The first part was just a clarification of what the company claims to be, did you consider it to be problematic because the description was taken from Neuralink's official website? Also, if you considered the links to be too many in number and to constitute spam, then some of them can of course simply be removed. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't need spam (first part of the edit), and second part, citing past accomplishments of employees, was some kind of OR/SYN/PROMO, implying that what the company is developing has something to do with "neural dust".

It is fine if it remains short until there are reliable sources discussing actual things they have done, business wise (plain old WP:RS), or for anything about health or biology, sources per WP:MEDRS. No hype, WP:CRYSTALL, or PROMO.

The chances that this will be deleted are slim to none; it ~may~ end up merged to the Musk article but even that appears very unlikely to me. Content about this company will be somewhere in WP. You don't need to fret. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"highly secretive"

User:HaeB maybe it is wierd for musk and his tech companies, but it is entirely normal in the world of biopharma/medical device companies to have nothing to say yet. If/when they publish a paper or present a conference abstract with results from animal studies they might do a press release but no medical device or biopharma company is going to generate PR about starting animal studies much less trying to open an animal testing facility. In San Francisco, especially. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Neuralink Logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Neuralink Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Electrodes section

The Electrodes section right now seems to contain some original research, were certain statements are quite general about electrodes and not about Neuralink. I think those should be removed, unless it's a topic that is explicitly discussed by Neuralink and in a source talking about the company. BeŻet (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, also IMHO Digital Trends is not necessarily an WP:RS in the first place. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Improvement: Reference missing for Neuralink Progress Update, Summer 2020

Can the following be added? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvmgjBL74w&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aduquet (talk • contribs) 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY sources would be more appropriate; some recent secondary sources could be:

• https://www.wired.com/story/neuralink-is-impressive-tech-wrapped-in-musk-hype/
• https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21406143/elon-musk-neuralink-ai-pigs-demo-brain-computer-interface
• https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53987919
• https://fortune.com/2020/08/31/neurolink-elon-musk-neurology-brain-implant-pigs/

CEO is updated wrong

CEO is mentioned as Jared Birchall, should be Elon Musk. As mention here by president Max Hodak and numerous new articles

https://twitter.com/max_hodak/status/1298870750183473153?s=19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.193.141.72 (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Updated. I couldn't find a reference to when exactly Musk became CEO. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Change 'had been approved as a FDA breakthrough device' to 'had received designation as an FDA breakthrough device'.

Neuralink has NOT received any sort of FDA 'approval'. FDA approval refers to a process of feedback and acknowledgment of benefit outweighing harm of a drug or device following human clinical trials. None of that has been performed yet by Neuralink. They are likely to start human trials soon and hopefully they will be successful and they will receive FDA approval soon. But they have not yet and the word 'approval' is wrong to use in this context. 2600:1700:8A11:850:890F:F191:7581:7F63 (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As this was only sourced to a video (one hour+, no timestamp) from the company itself, I removed the claim entirely. Any claim of regulatory blessing should come from a reliable, independent source. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of a grammatical tense

There have been some edits regarding the use of a verb tense, with unconvincing claims of error.--178.138.32.26 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

For some bizarre reason you have tried to say that "The company has been launched since 2016", even though (1) it was launched in 2016, not at any time since then, and (b) it was launched just once, at a specified time in the past: it hasn't been launched repeatedly or continuously, nor does the statement about the launching leave the time unspecified, or specify it as taking place in a period extending to the present. I suggest that you give up trying to "correct" English grammar, since your understanding of English grammar is evidently not adequate for the purpose. JBW (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If you make suggestions to others re the understanding of English grammar aplied to this particular case, you should mention a grammar rule that would be against the perfectly valid mentioned grammar statement "The company has been launched since 2016" which underlines the time since the launch (or the effects of the launch). The launching action does not need to be repeated or continuous in order to be expressed by Present Perfect Tense. This tense can express non-repeated action. If you don't specify a rule for your understanding of this aspect of Eng grammar (and you haven't so far) you have no right to label others' understanding of Eng grammar as not adequate for the purpose.--178.138.194.65 (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You have to specify the name of the supposed grammar rule that is broken by the statement "The company has been launched since 2016".--178.138.194.65 (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

try reading this [1] guide to past tense in English. A launch is a one-off event, it is not ongoing IdreamofJeanie (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Criticism (previously named "Reception")

This section would do well with even more critique as there's a lot of it. I did a bit of a rewrite to contextualize the critique better. It's not just this section, but also others such as the history one which must have had old claims (e.g. not going to open the cranium to implant it) deleted or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameloso (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:CRIT. I changed it back to "Reception." It would also "do well" if editors followed the WP:NEUTRAL policy. All of the reception is isn't bad. GBFEE (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hm... OK. That man is a polarizing high-profile controversy magnet. I'll be sure to be more mindful moving forward. A lot of the criticism coming his way does look spiteful, such as Tesla still haven't produced a car that doesn't need a driver.

I'm still in disagreement because if the section is labeled "criticism" it also will be more readily apparent that this section in this article does in fact not contain any positive comments from BCI researchers (past the lukewarm positive comments on the engineering). The "mixed recepetion" by researchers is unsubstantiated in this section after having read the sources being referenced. Neuralink is a for-profit corporation with profit interests, and the demonstrations and other statements surrounding the product reasonably should be considered as marketing for The Link™. Now, there is no available product as of today, but the criticism in the section all point to the mismatch between the marketing and actual possible capabilities. Even though there currently isn't any product being sold, I see the critique as more on par with the critiques of Tesla, Inc (such as its delays) rather than treating Neuralink as a series of seminars and demos. Cross-checking with the Neuralink website it is merely claiming that the first product generation will let you control a phone running iOS, while the Stentrode already is used in clinical trials to control a PC.

Originally, the only meaningful and positive statement in the section before that came from Musk. Only a single positive comment in the BBC article was cited. "[B]ut that the wireless features were "nice". The BBC article is also the only instance where a somewhat positive comment by a researcher is found: "this is solid engineering but mediocre neuroscience". About the "main" article from 2017, there are no positive statements included that was made by any of the researchers, despite them at the time believing that Neuralink somehow would be injected and not require open cranium surgery. The journalist had positive things to say for sure, but she should not be included in the "neuroscientific community" category. The remaining two articles being referenced (here and here) are written with a heavily negative slant. It already was a criticism section that omitted the substantial critique. Essentially it framed the critique as "Musk's claims are slightly exaggerated", while it really was about pointing out that this far Neuralink hasn't done anything cutting-edge of note and as such doesn't live up to the talk.

Musk retracted his statement that the plan was to inject a wide net on top of the brain by presenting more accurate information at a later date. I haven't seen a single researcher in brain-computer interfaces speak positively about Neuralink to any meaningful degree. They have to exist I'm sure, but someone would have to actively search for it and dig it up from somewhere if this is a "reception" section and not a "criticism" one.

Perhaps the transhumanism talk constantly being brought up could warrant a "reception" title. Though, it's a philosophical tradition that was established 100 years ago. Kameloso (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:EDITORIAL also. GBFEE (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, I agree.[2] There's a discussion here. Do you have content for positive reception? GBFEE (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned about that the device's development is mocked as being unethical to animals, when in reality it's not really, and the critics are hardcore animal activists. I'm researching about the topic and will do a both Elon and Neuralink rewrite in a few days. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent claim by Musk

Does the recent claim by Musk warrant inclusion somewhere in the article? (regarding the expected human application within six months) TNstingray (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray I'm against. Considering the low reliability of "Elon time" I don't think the claim warrants inclusion unless it appears in writing from the company 2A02:A420:40:5D6B:CC32:B150:4853:1358 (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Nuralink

Ok 2405:204:8304:7BD2:3F40:FE2C:B3B5:72BB (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

PETA and PCRM as reliable sources

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) are not reliable sources.

PETA's Wikipedia entry: The organization has been widely criticized for its controversial campaigns and euthanasia use, the latter of which has resulted in legal action and a response from Virginia lawmakers.

PCRM: see criticism from the American Medical Association (AMA), one of the most reputable medical associations and publisher of JAMA, a top ranked medical journal. Tuskla (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

How do such critiques mean they don't meet our WP:RS policy, especially when they are referenced primiarily for their particular stances on a topic? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduce myself

Hi, I attend Uskudar University as a student. As a homework assignment for my Biotechnology in Neurosciences course, I would like to edit this Neurolink article. In order to become an expert Wikipedia editor, I have already finished the training modules. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Semahatice.durgut. Semahatice.durgut (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep language neutral

Elon Musk's and Neurolink's innovative neurointerface has all the makings of a true stride forward in the next generation of brain-machine interfaces for both research and therapeutic applications. Invasive interfaces can assist handicapped persons in controlling external equipment and communicating with others. Future communication technologies, we predict, will be built on brain-computer interfaces that receive brain signals and transform them into messages that are then delivered to mobile or other devices. Furthermore, invasive brain-machine interfaces will allow people to communicate directly through their thoughts.

This is NOT neutral language. The wording of the source has been deliberately reinterpreted to present an overly positive image of Neuralink and effectively use this page to market the product. NimoEdit (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)