Every time El*n M*sk or Neur*link trends in neural tech, I get a sinking feeling in my stomach. It's difficult to explain all the reasons behind the sheer depth of the despair I feel, but I must try.
I am a neuroscientist and a technologist who loves tinkering and making. I want to create tools, insights, devices, models and empower all who want to use them. I want to contribute to an open pool of knowledge and stand on each other's shoulders to empower one another.
So it is truly heartbreaking to see foreshadows of where neurotech is headed -- in the direction of concentrating power, attention, resources, and wealth in the hands of so few, wrapped in the disguise of “helping” the many.
When the Billionaire Branding machine churns, all oxygen -- attention, funding, public imagination -- is sucked out of the room towards the one flame. Look what Theranos has done to the field of miniaturized rapid blood testing.
While Theranos shined, others could not secure funding: "Isn't Theranos already working on this?" When it all burnt down, still no funding: "I thought miniaturization was a scam?" The oxygen is exhausted for years. (You also see this in AI winter cycles en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter).
Indeed, the Billionaire Brand becomes the exclusive gatekeeper of rhetoric and funding. e.g., Try working in the field of global health without the blessing and approval of the Gates Foundation.
Gates controls a vast proportion of the funding and dictates the priorities, placing technocratic moonshots like gene drive mosquito releases over practical community-identified health solutions with multiple additional benefits allafrica.com/stories/202110….
The same thing is happening in the climate mitigation space. Gates focuses on direct carbon capture and other privatizable technologies, while shutting down conversations of inequality, poverty, debt, consumption, and reparations that need to occur in parallel.
M*sk claims that electric cars will save us, while locking us into the severe environmental costs of car-dependence and sprawl, and out of the many benefits of car-light, walkable neighborhoods with increased access to free or affordable public transportation.
In the neuro space, Neur*link is pouring funding only into implants that realistically will never be used by the average patient with disabilities in the absence of structural changes to our healthcare systems.
In contrast, if you ask disabled communities what they need, many emphasize that the most important priorities are reformation of disability benefits and urgent solutions like lighter, more performant and waterproof wheelchairs that are reimbursable by health insurance.
This willful ignorance of community needs, unwillingness to address inequality, and placement of profit over public infrastructure came to a head during COVID, as 20+ yrs of taxpayer-funded research turned instantly into immensely profitable IP for a few pharmaceutical companies.
After taking off with our public money for R&D *and* capital costs of production, these same pharmaceutical companies have turned around and tried to cut public scientists off of their patents washingtonpost.com/business/2021/….
The same pattern appears with Neur*link. 7 academic researchers co-founded the company with M*sk, many of whom left their faculty positions to do so. < 2 years after founding, 5 of the 7 co-founders have now left, yet the company continues to own their taxpayer-funded work.
It's likely that some of these people would have wanted to work further on these projects, but are now prevented from further contributing their expertise to their original work due to this IP grab.
Despite these Billionaire Branding pitfalls, many believe that if the technology is getting out there, it must be a net good. But I am really despondent over this view of "net good".
Neur*link is a company controlled by an individual who literally has legions of online harassers trolling twitter for mentions, lest negative press bring down e.g. stock shares which they have purchased.
A person who believes in money-take-all techno-futurism (
And a person who is proud of dodging consequences and accountability for any profit-making actions (
https://twitter.com/analogist_net/status/1299533377423376384).
And a person who is proud of dodging consequences and accountability for any profit-making actions (
https://twitter.com/analogist_net/status/1299533379155578880).
This is who you think should profit from and control the future of neural tech? And the field's future funding, framing, and goals? And the rhetoric around communities it purports to help? If so, when was the last time you talked to the communities you say you are helping?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
