• Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    That’s definitely one legitimate perspective. Another would be from the guy who can potentially gain some of his automony and dignity back regardless of the asshole who is itching to profit from it.

    • machinin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I guess it is an old argument. How willing are we, as a society, to protect people from being taken advantage of by cons. Musk had been extremely resilient for a con man. Probably because he mainly goes after relatively poor people.

      Musk’s companies aren’t the only ones making breakthroughs in their respective fields. The only difference between Musk companies and others is that Musk just didn’t care about safety, so good companies cut corners to make people think they are ahead. Other companies who are more responsible aren’t willing to cut those corners for ethical reasons.

      • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s not like the technology is a con. Brain implants have been iterated upon for decades. This is just the latest incarnation - after extensive animal testing. I don’t think we have a right to tell a quadriplegic they may not meaningfully improve their lives because we feel the risk is too high. They’re locked in a living prison.