If Neuralink can prove its device is safe in humans, it would still potentially take more than a decade for the start-up to secure commercial use approval

If Neuralink can prove its device is safe in humans, it would still potentially take more than a decade for the start-up to secure commercial use approval

  • ImplyingImplications
    14·
    1 year ago

    Where are all those people who were worried vaccines had chips in them? Now this guy is literally saying he’s going to chip you and nothing lol

      • skogens_ro@kbin.social
        2·
        1 year ago

        I don’t believe in the vaccine-chip nonsense, but I think there’s consistency there: it’s about informed consent. There’s a huge difference between being told by the government to take a vaccine that secretly has a chip in it, and Elon Musk offering chips for sale. If you choose to buy Musk’s chip, you’re doing so voluntarily and you know that you are getting a chip.

        Plus, how many of the tinfoil hats are cheering on Neuralink?

        • goat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          The difference is that the vaccine physically can’t have a chip. It’s impossible for that level of technology to be injected into muscle through a needle.

          • skogens_ro@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            Yeah there are numerous reasons why the conspiracy theory doesn’t hold.

            But that’s besides the point. Let’s say they thought the vaccine secretly contained benzos in order to make the population more docile or whatever. That doesn’t mean they need to object to any use of the drug in order to be consistent. The problem would be that the government is secretly injecting the population for nefarious reasons, which would be a valid concern if there were any truth to it.