Elon Musk’s neurotechnology company Neuralink has announced that it’s looking for recruits for its first in-human clinical trial of a brain implant.

Approved 

Neuralink says that it has received approval from the independent institutional review board and for its first hospital site to begin recruitment in its first-in-human clinical trial of a brain implant that could help people with paralysis to control external devices with their thoughts.

Neuralink 

Neuralink is a neurotechnology company co-founded by Elon Musk in 2016. The company’s aim has been to develop high-bandwidth brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) with the goal of merging the human brain with artificial intelligence (AI) and thereby advance human capabilities.

The idea is that the BMI, with its tiny, flexible electrode threads (thinner than human hairs) can be implanted into the brain to establish a high-resolution interface with neural circuits to record and stimulate electrical activity.

The main objective of Neuralink is to create a safe and effective means of connecting the human brain to computers or other external devices, for example to enable people who can’t use their hands to use their mobile phone or other devices simply by thinking about it.

The PRIME Study 

The first in-human trial has been dubbed the PRIME Study (short for Precise Robotically Implanted Brain-Computer Interface) which Neuralink describes as “a groundbreaking investigational medical device trial for our fully implantable, wireless brain-computer interface (BCI)”.  

The six-year PRIME study will be used to assess and evaluate the safety and functionality of the company’s N1 implant, R1 surgical robot, and BCI. Neuralink says the goal of this first study will be: “to grant people the ability to control a computer cursor or keyboard using their thoughts alone.” 

What Will Happen? 

Neuralink says the study, which will be conducted under the investigational device exemption (IDE) awarded by the FDA in May 2023, will involve:

– The R1 Robot surgically placing the N1 Implant’s ultra-fine threads in a region of the brain that controls movement intention.

– The N1 Implant (which is “cosmetically invisible”) being used to record and transmit brain signals wirelessly to an app that will decode movement intention.

Recruits 

Neuralink’s website says that, since the main (initial) purpose of the implant is to help those with paralysis to control external devices with their thoughts, it is looking for recruits for the study who have, “quadriplegia due to cervical spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)” 

That said, the website also provides a link for those who want to join a “Patient Registry” for current and “future Neuralink clinical trials.” 

Pigs 

Some may remember that  Neuralink’s implanting of devices into pigs (3 years ago) and demonstration by Musk involving three of them attracted a backlash and great deal of criticism on ethical grounds. Some commentators at the time also noted the potential dystopian possibilities of implants that could potentially be used for control, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) reacted very angrily to Mr Musk’s use of pigs. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk issued a statement at the time saying, “PETA challenges Elon Musk to behave like a pioneer and implant the Neuralink chip in his own brain.” 

In 2022, it was reported that the company was under federal investigation for potential animal-welfare violations, and that there were internal staff complaints that Neuralink’s animal testing was being rushed and may have caused needless suffering and deaths.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Finding a way to help people with paralysis to operate devices using just their thoughts is a promising and potentially ground-breaking innovation that could deliver huge benefits. It’s also good that volunteers are being invited, thereby potentially giving many people a chance.

This is still a trial however, with a device is in its early stages, even though it has shown some promising signs in tests on pigs (which in itself created an ethical backlash) and so over the next six-months it will still only help a small number of people. That said, it needs to be tested and it’s likely that there will be many volunteers.

If successful and production and implanting program moves forward, the device could (presumably )help with other (medical) conditions and its usage could open up many other opportunities and whole new areas of development for companies and developers hoping to use the interface to link with a variety of products and services in a unique way. However, with it being a brain implant from a company run by a controversial tech figure rather than someone with a medical background, it will inevitably attract criticism around the first steps being taken into a dystopian future. Doubtless too, there will be conspiracy theories and opposition.

Hopefully, the proper regulation and oversight will be in place for Neuralink’s testing (both animals and human) to ensure safety and ethics going forward, and it would be a great achievement if, in six months or so, someone with paralysis can have at least part of their life transformed in a positive way by the implant, and even greater if this could be scaled up to benefit many more people.

It’s been reported that a trade group for U.S. authors (including John Grisham) has sued OpenAI, accusing it of unlawfully training its chatbot ChatGPT on their work.

Which Authors? 

The Authors Guild trade group has filed the lawsuit (in Manhattan federal court) on behalf of a number of prominent authors including John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, George Saunders, Jodi Picoult, “Game of Thrones” novelist George R.R. Martin, “The Lincoln Lawyer” writer Michael Connelly and lawyer-novelists David Baldacci and Scott Turow.

Why? 

The Guild’s lawsuit alleges that the datasets that have been used to train OpenAI’s large language model (LLM) to respond to human prompts include text from the authors’ books, which may have been taken from illegal online “pirate” book repositories.

As proof, the Guild alleges that ChatGPT can generate accurate summaries of the authors’ books when prompted (including details not available in reviews anywhere else online), which indicates that that their text must be included in its database.

Also, the Authors Guild has expressed concerns that ChatGPT could be used to replace authors and instead could simply “generate low-quality eBooks, impersonating authors and displacing human-authored books.” 

Threat 

The Authors Guild said it organised the lawsuit after witnessing first-hand, “the harm and existential threat to the author profession wrought by the unlicensed use of books to create large language models that generate texts.”  

The Guild cites its latest author income survey as an example of how the income of authors could be adversely affected by LLMs. For example, in 2022 authors (according to the survey) earned just over $20,000, including book and other author-related activities, and although 10 percent of authors earn far above the median, half earn even less.

The Authors Guild says, “Generative AI threatens to decimate the author profession.”  

The Point 

To illustrate the main point of the Guild’s allegations, Scott Sholder, a partner with Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard and co-counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, is reported on their website as saying : “Plaintiffs don’t object to the development of generative AI, but Defendants had no right to develop their AI technologies with unpermitted use of the authors’ copyrighted works. Defendants could have ‘trained’ their large language models on works in the public domain or paid a reasonable licensing fee to use copyrighted works.”  

Open Letter With 10,000 Signatures 

The lawsuit may have been the inevitable next step considering that back in July, the Authors Guild submitted a 10,000 signature open letter to the CEOs of prominent AI companies (OpenAI, Alphabet, Meta, Stability AI, IBM, and Microsoft) complaining about the building of lucrative generative AI technologies using copyrighted works and asking AI developers get consent from, credit, and fairly compensate authors.

What Does Open AI Say? 

As expected in a case where so much may be at stake, no direct comment has been made public by OpenAI (so far) although one source (Forbes) reported online that an OpenAI spokesperson has told it was involved in “productive conversation” many creators around (including the Authors Guild) to discuss their AI concerns.

Where previous (copyright) lawsuits have been filed against it, in its defence OpenAI is reported to have pointed the idea of fair use that could be applied to LLMs.

Others 

Other generative AI providers are also facing similar lawsuits, e.g. Meta Platforms and Stability AI.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Ever since ChatGPT’s disruptive introduction last November with its amazing generative abilities (e.g. with text and code, plus the abilities of image generators), creators (artists, authors, coders etc) have felt AI’s negative effects, expressed their fears about it, and felt the need to protest. For example, the Hollywood actors and writers strikes, complaints from artists that AI image generators have copied their styles, and now the Authors Guild are all part of a growing opposition who feel threatened and exploited.

We are still in the very early stages of generative AI where it appears to many that the technology may be running way ahead of regulation, and where AI providers may appear to be able to bypass areas of consent, copyright, and crediting, and in doing so, use the work of others to generate profits for themselves. This has led to authors, writers, actors, and other creatives fearing a reduction or loss of income and fearing that their skills and professions could be devalued, and that they can and will be replaced by AI. Also, they fear that generative AI could be preferred by studios and other content providers to reduce costs and complication, leading to the inevitable, multiple legal fights that we’re seeing now to clarify boundaries and protect themselves and their livelihoods. In the case of the very powerful Authors Guild, OpenAI will need to bring its ‘A’ game to the dispute as the Authors Guild points out it’s “here to fight” and has “a formidable legal team” with “expertise in copyright law.”

This is not the only lawsuit against an AI provider and there are likely to be many more and many similar protests until legal outcomes provide more clarity of the boundaries in the altered environment created by generative AI.

With many of the world’s coral reefs being damaged by heat and acidification, one startup has developed a system to restore reefs at scale with the help of trained AI robots..

Coral Reefs Struggling 

The world’s coral reefs only cover 0.2 per cent of the seafloor, but they provide a vital habitat to more than a quarter of marine species. Coral reefs, however, are currently in decline due to climate change (leading to ocean warming and acidification), overfishing, pollution, coastal development, and disease. All these factors have led to coral bleaching events (a sign of stressed corals) and have hindered coral growth and reproduction, thereby disrupting the balance of reef ecosystems.

Warning 

The grim warning from scientists is that even just a 1.5C increase in water temperature could result in anywhere between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of the world’s reefs being lost (Global Coral Reel Monitoring Network), which could have dramatic effects on the ocean ecosystem.

Coral Skeletons 

Coral Maker is a startup, founded by Dr Taryn Foster, that seeks to tackle the problems being faced by coral. To do this, the company uses a combination of innovative technology and science to help scale up the restoration rate and success of coral reefs through transplanting tiny, cultivated corals into damaged reefs.

Coral Maker mass produces premade stone coral skeletons which, when deployed as part of its system, helps to significantly reduce the number of years of coral calcification (skeletal growth) required to reach adult size. The skeletons consist of coral fragments grafted into small plugs and inserted into a moulded base.

The system, which can be deployed close to the reefs where it’s needed enables the low cost and fast production of 10,000 premade coral skeletons per day, each with the capacity to hold 6-8 coral fragments. The system’s carbon footprint is reduced by using recycled stone waste from the construction industry and the fact that the skeletons can be produced close to where they’re needed reduces transportation emissions.

Robots 

Since the idea is to rejuvenate reefs at scale using thousands of coral skeletons per day, each positioned in the same way, the repetitive nature of the manufacturing of these base skeletons is work is suited to robots. Coral Maker’s system, therefore, automates its coral propagation by using robotics and AI (supplied by San Francisco based engineering software firm Autodesk).

These automated robots, designed for onsite deployment at the restoration site, and designed to collaborative with people (freeing up humans to do more complex work) have been dubbed ‘cobots’ (because of the collaboration). The pre-trained cobots are essentially AI powered robotic arms that can graft or glue coral fragments to the seed plugs and place them in the bases.

Use Vision Systems and AI To Decide How Best To Handle Coral 

The cobots have their own vision systems which, combined with AI, enables them to decide how best to grab the bases. This vision technology is needed because each piece of coral, even within the same species is slightly different and living coral fragments are very delicate.

Next Step – Put The Robots On Boats 

The next step for the company (estimated to take 12-18 months) is to find a way to successfully enable the robot arm ‘cobot’ to be deployed on a boat right next to where it is needed on the reef without any of its vulnerable components being damaged by salt water, and in a way that keeps it stable enough to carry out its delicate work.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation? 

The earth’s coral provides a vital habitat to more than a quarter of marine species. Losing our coral would mean a loss of many species and biodiversity, and the complete disruption of marine food webs and ecosystems. There would also be other impacts, e.g. economic (a decline in fisheries and tourism), and a loss of the potential to find new pharmaceuticals. Reefs also act as a coastline buffer and with so many large storms associated with climate change, having no living reefs could actually result in more coastal flooding. It’s clear, therefore, that something has to be done very soon to restore reefs damaged by heat (warmer water temperatures) and acidification. Coral Maker’s system, combining as it does technology and science, gives many benefits, e.g. large areas can be covered quickly as time is saved by using pre-formed skeletons, it uses recycled materials, plus it can shipped and operated anywhere. This makes it a credible way to start trying to reverse some of the damage done to reefs, thereby safeguarding the vital habitats and ecosystems that support so much marine life.

This is a great example of how technologies like AI and robotics can make an important and positive difference in a way that benefits all of us. The hope is that if the cost of the system can be kept low enough, and there is enough investment (money and human capital), and the ‘cobots’ can be made to work effectively on boats (which could take more than a year), the system, and other ideas can be put to work in multiple locations as quickly as possible.

Falcon 1 Launched : 28th September 2008

Rocket Man!

This week on September 28 2008 SpaceX managed to finally get the Falcon 1 rocket into space.

Founder Elon Musk was obviously thrilled, although curiously he wasn’t hungry – even though he’d skipped breakfast earlier that day. It was because he’d had such a big launch.

And just like that pun spectacularly failed, so too did Elon’s first three rocket launches in 2006, 2007, and also earlier that same year in 2008. It was why the payload of ‘RatSat’ was just a dummy and was used to simulate the mass of an actual satellite to test the rocket’s capabilities without risking a functional satellite. Obviously, cash was more important than ever as this was the first fully liquid-fuelled launch vehicle developed privately to enter orbit. An expensive business!

After those three expensive failures, that fourth success was pretty crucial for Elon Musk who has mentioned in several interviews that the company was close to running out of funds, and the success of the fourth launch was critical for securing more funding and ensuring the survival of the company.

After the rocket was launched successfully the next July (2009), this meant the rocket had 5 launches before it was retired, helping secure SpaceX to become the success it has become and with a market cap this summer (2023) of around $150 Billion, it’s Worth More Than Boeing and Raytheon. Not bad.

The moral here? If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again!
Although it may be helpful make sure you have deep pockets or access to someone else’s capital.

Following the recent news that sales of Apple’s iPhone 12 in France have been banned over radiation fears, we look at where these fears came from and how much danger, if any, Apple iPhone 12 users may be in.

France, Fears, Ban, & Update 

France’s National Frequency Agency (ANFR), the watchdog that manages all radio frequencies in France (for all wireless communications) recently ordered an immediate withdrawal of the iPhone 12 from the French market over fears that the phone could be emitting dangerous radiation.

The fears came from the results of an ANFR test of the iPhone 12, simulating the phone being held in the hand or put in a pocket. Following the test, the ANFR reported that it emits more electromagnetic waves (susceptible to being absorbed by the body) than permitted.

With ‘SAR’ standing for Specific Absoption Rates, the ANFR’s tests evaluate phones in contact with the body for “limb” SAR (a phone held in the hand or in a trouser pocket), and at a distance of 5 mm for “trunk” SAR (a phone carried in a jacket pocket or a bag). In the EU, phones must comply with the regulatory limit values of 4.0 W/kg for “limb” SAR and 2 W/kg for “trunk” SAR. In the case of the iPhone 12 test, the ANFR said that “measurements have revealed a “limb” SAR value exceeding this limit, specifically 5.74 W/kg. However, the “trunk” SAR values are compliant.” 

In addition to the ban on sales of the iPhone 12, the ANFR said: “Apple must immediately take all measures to prevent the availability of the concerned phones in the supply chain. Regarding the phones that have already been sold, Apple must promptly take corrective measures to bring the concerned phones into compliance. Failing that, it will be the company Apple’s responsibility to recall them.” 

Germany & Belgum Spooked 

Following the results and action in France, it was reported that regulators in Germany and Belgium were investigating the SAR levels of the iPhone 12 which could result in similar action in those countries. Other European countries may follow suit. Spain’s OCU consumers’ group, for example, has urged authorities there to halt the sales of the iPhone 12.

What Does Apple Say About It? 

Apple has disputed the ANFR’s findings, dismissing them as “a specific testing protocol used by French regulators and not a safety concern.” 

Apple said that its iPhone 12, introduced in 2020, has been certified by multiple international bodies as compliant with global radiation standards, that it has provided several Apple and third-party lab results proving the phone’s compliance to the French agency, and that it was contesting its findings.

Apple has also said that it will issue a software update to fix any radiation issues.

Who’s Right? Is It Dangerous? 

Electromagnetic fields are present everywhere, i.e. electromagnetic field radiation occurs naturally and also, we are subject to man-made electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by electricity that comes out of every power socket. The higher frequency radio waves used to transmit information, e.g. from TV antennas, radio stations or mobile phone base stations. Arguably, the common lightbulb emits high frequency electromagnetic radiation (i.e. visible light), yet few people are concerned about that. However, fields of different frequencies interact with the body in different ways.

Radiation, which appears to be the most frightening word due to its links to cancer, refers to the emission of energy as electromagnetic (EM) waves or fast-moving subatomic particles. Both forms of radiation are naturally occurring, and can come from various sources including the sun, cosmic rays, radon gas, radioactive rocks and even common foods such as Brazil nuts. However, “non-ionising” radiation comes from much lower frequency (EM) sources, such as microwaves, cordless-phones, Bluetooth etc. Radiation can also come from, planned (medical, occupational) or accidental situations.

Where mobile phones are concerned, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which sets global SAR guidance and levels classed the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phone use as “possibly carcinogenic” in 2011. However, as the World Health organisation stated about the radiofrequency waves transmitted by mobile phones in 2014: “Radiofrequency waves are electromagnetic fields, and unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays or gamma rays, can neither break chemical bonds nor cause ionisation in the human body.”

It also stated that: “A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.” 

Comments About The iPhone 12’s Safety 

In relation to the iPhone 12’s ban, Professor Rodney Croft, the chair of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has been widely quoted across the media, saying: “From a health and safety point of view, it is not as if this is putting anyone at risk”. 

Limits Have Been Set Low 

It is also the case that regulatory limits on SAR have been set well below levels where scientists have found evidence of harm anyway. For example, based on the risk of burns or heatstroke from a phone’s radiation, the SAR levels are already set ten times below the level where scientists have found evidence of harm.

This suggests that there may be no need for alarm over the French testing of the iPhone 12 which only showed a slightly excessive reading in the “limb” SAR value but was compliant in other tests.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

With an abundance of devices, transmitters, and other sources of electromagnetic waves all around us in the street, home, workplace, and countryside, and with more of us becoming more reliant on our radiofrequency wave-transmitting phones, it’s good that are tests taking place. It’s also good from a consumer protection point of view that enough tolerance has been built into the SAR tests, and that there are regulators in place to force fast action, e.g. from sales bans to recalls. However, from Apple’s point of view, the results of a test in one country, whether fully accurate or not, has damaged sales through a ban (which is spreading internationally) and led to a more damaging wave of fear and bad publicity.

If Apple can’t satisfy the regulators (it has two weeks to respond in France) and quell fears over a phone that’s now three years old, a snowballing effect could bring an even wider ban across the EU and an even more expensive recall (as already threatened) could follow.

Apple has just launched its iPhone 15 and will be hoping that the fears don’t rub off and affect its sales or, even worse, that it doesn’t also come under scrutiny and come out with similar results. That said, as France’s junior minister for the digital economy, Jean-Noel Barrot (who is sceptical of the software update fix) says, the rule is the same for everyone introducing devices in France, including the digital giants.

Outside of the software update, Apple may now need to do some more serious talking and convincing to “stop the rot” in the EU damaging its profits and reputation further. All this is, of course, good news for Apple’s competitors in the EU phone market who may pick up some of Apple’s lost sales.

The SAR findings top off a bad week for Apple in Europe where it has also been forced to swap its lightning charger for a USB-C charging port for its iPhone 15 in order to comply with EU rules for standardisation in 2024.