I think a bit of skepticism is warranted here. Patient number 1 isn't some random guy getting the procedure and recounting it's benefits. But someone self-selected and willing from day 1, massively engaged with the company, likely paid or compensated, getting a lot of promotion, visibility and attention, etc.

It's possible a lot of the QOL improvements are from the circumstances of getting all that attention, or the hype circle they themselves found themselves in.

I also think people need to be open minded to the possibility Neuralink does offer promising benefits.

I'm just seeing a lot of people strongly for or against, and really I think the reasonable stance here is to remain optimistically pessimistic until further evidence.

Let's be clear about what is a good subject for review and what is not. One person's opinion about how they feel is not. It can be a good subject for further inquiry, though: learn more about their experiences and consider critically whether those experiences generalize to others.

Credentialism at its finest.

so are people who claim placebos and homeopathy improved their conditions, we are not reliable on an individual level

No placebo can let him "do things like play Mario Kart, control his television, and turn his Dyson air purifier on and off without physically moving his fingers or any other part of his body."

Given that there are objective changes, it is not unreasonable to believe his claim that he is satisfied or has benefitted from them.

The objective and subjective observations are about different but related things.

The objective measurements are about his enhanced abilities. He can do things he couldn't before.

But, the GP comment referred to "quality of life" which is innately difficult to measure objectively. It's possible that he was able to do those things but it caused him enough irritation to do them that he avoided using it (like CPAP often is for example), or that the things it enabled him to do weren't sufficient to warrant feeling improved. My father has limited mobility, but no interest in playing mario kart or adjusting an air filter, and there's very little in his home that he has or would want to be automated. Anything that could be my mom or another family member usually takes care of anyway, even if it's still something he could do himself as he's rather tech illiterate.

So, in this scenario, given my father's age, the risks involved in such a major surgery for his age, and his personal inclinations, the very same additional capabilities likely wouldn't be worthwhile in his opinion. Hence, the subjective experience of the objective changes are how you measure quality of life for this kind of operation.

yes, quality of life is a very difficult thing to measure objectively, because of the subjective component, as you state. are you under the impression the "reviews by independent experts" mentioned in the comment above the one you cited would only be meaningful if the person narrating their subjective experience was found to be outright lying? you are clearly familiar with some of the nuances, thus i'm not sure why you would not also be interested in independent reviews of the subject. his personal story is worth a lot, but it's not everything. i would think the more people reviewing it seriously, the more benefit to people like your father (and countless others)

If you don't trust the subject, he would most likely decline to participate in an independent review entirely.

In any case, just like the stock market, the fact he responded well does not guarantee someone else will.

What we need is more data, not a higher degree of confidence in this one point. An independent review would be nice to satisfy our curiosity, but it wouldn't add much to our understanding anyway.

it's not objective when there's only a single reporter and it's the subject

no before/after video, no third party report, there's nothing here but puffery... half the article goes on to promote robots

You are right when it comes to qualia, but wholly incorrect in this case. There are measurable metrics in his life (ie independent use of computers, social engagements etc.)

It's not like he's having to rate his level of happiness here, these are physical benefits

Who is measuring the physical benefits? because based on this article it's no one... so again, we're taking one person's word for it... and it's very likely this person is contractually obligated to not disparage the company

He explains his expanded day to day functionality in the article

He may be obligated not to say bad things, but he isn't obligated to say good things.

we don't have enough information to say that either, wouldn't be unusual to get free medical treatment in exchange for good press... and even without an explicit incentive there's a lot of implicit bias to not speak ill of someone that has hardware in your brain

this is why it's worthless without a third party review of conditions

if that's the case why do you care to read about his subjective experience, at all? isn't that the point of the comment inquiring about an independent review?

Because the subjective experience is the thing we actually care about.

Same reason you ask the users of any product for feedback. Sure, you can objectively see that they were able to click the register button, still doesn’t guarantee they came out of that experience wanting to use the product.

are you under the impression that the sole focus of an independent review as described in the root comment would be to investigate the personal veracity of "Participant 1"'s narration? do you alter course in your product because of single, particular user anecdote? i'm not sure what you think you are arguing against here...

That seems entirely reasonable to me in this instance, yes

Placebos only effect subjective outcomes, not objective ones.

That's not categorically true. Although a placebo inherently relies on a patient's subjective understanding of receiving a treatment, that understanding can change any number of very objective outcomes. That's why so many studies that measure objective metrics use placebos to begin with.

a good point, and one that highlights the fact that people are unironically relying on "objective"/"subjective" distinctions in this thread - when this division is not necessarily a straightforward one in neurology or philosophy/language. putting a neurological implant in someone's brain doesn't strike me as an act that immediately clarifies this issue, to put it mildly. but this technology is still in its infancy. thus, the more people to "review" it, the better... doesn't mean the benefits they are giving people or the work has to stop... it just doesn't mean some skepticism isn't warranted either...

For all we know, the Neuralink is making him say that... /s

The fact that the CIA hasn't black-hole classified it is a good start.

I can't tell if you're trying to be clever, sarcastic, or are failing at both so I'll answer earnestly: reviews by independent experts of the claims of Neurolink the company and of the methods used to achieve those claimed results.

Not if you're being paid to be there.

See: Yeonmi Park and the absurdity of her stories that are essentially a product of South Korea's day-time TV.

(North Korean refugees typically can't get work permits, some of the little work available is telling people how bad NK is. It is illegal to say anything good about NK in SK)

DPRK propaganda on my HN????

An exaggerated example of people lying about their lives for their new livelyhood. Relax.