Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

We have both cars and pacemakers that can kill people if you send the right wireless commands. Why would Neuralink be different?

I agree that we do have the technology to make it secure if we want to. We've made flight software secure in the '80s or so.

What we don't have, is the incentives. We've built everything on insecure foundations to get to the market cheaper and faster. These incentives don't change for Neuralink. In fact, they create kind of gold rush conditions that make things worse.

What could change things dramatically overnight was the governenent stepping in and enforcing safety regulations, even at the cost of red tape and slow bureaucratic processes. And it's starting, slowly. But e.g. the EU is promoting SBOM's, sobtheir underlying mental model is still one where you tape random software together quickly.



> Why would Neuralink be different?

At some point in the future no one will be using x86 or any variation, and we will all be using a secure architecture. Same as with insecure languages, far enough in the future, every language in common use will be safe.

I believe by the time brain implants are common, we will be far enough in the future that we will be using secure foundations for those brain implants.

> What could change things dramatically overnight was the governenent stepping in and enforcing safety regulations,

For a damn brain implant I don't see why they wouldn't.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: