Neuralink 'participant 1' Says His Life Has Changed
Key topics
Neuralink's 'Participant 1', Noland Arbaugh, reports significant life changes 18 months after receiving the implant, sparking both enthusiasm and skepticism in the HN community about the technology's potential and implications.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
7m
Peak period
62
48-60h
Avg / period
22.9
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Aug 24, 2025 at 5:12 AM EDT
5 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Aug 24, 2025 at 5:18 AM EDT
7m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
62 comments in 48-60h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Aug 30, 2025 at 11:12 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
That is basically the textbook definition of unethical medical practice, so unquestionably far over the line of acceptable practice that you would have to be willfully ignorant to defend it, and they think it would be exciting if it were not banned.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZGItIAUQmI&t=5239s
This is aside from the harm it does to the rest of us to prevent experimentation by willing participants, such as barring human challenge trials to quickly test Covid vaccines.
i would guess that these protections exist to cover a broader group including children or those who are in the care of others and aren't necessarily capable of making their own decisions about experimental treatment... to say nothing of other forms of coercion otherwise-capable adults may face when it comes to stuff like this.
it's tricky! and it doesn't seem like there's a one-size-fits-all approach that offers protection for those who need it.
This is an extremely uncharitable interpretation of what was said. First of all, it's really hard to get malpractice here, as consent is implied (unless you'd think he'd purposefully do a bad or sloppy job). You could say it's irresponsible, and that argument holds more water, but when folks are in these terrible situations (i.e. terminally ill, etc.), a strong argument could also be that it's morally impermissible to disallow them to partake in such experimental treatments.
In any case, it's an interesting moral conundrum, akin to abortion or euthanasia.
We allow compassionate testing of therapies that might allow you to live longer because the alternative is an ugly death.
Consent is never ever ever implied and you don't have to deliberately do a poor job to be liable.
Just not having good evidence of the therapy is liable to improve their lot and doing it anyway or failing to impart an accurate picture of the risks because you don't know enough to do so.
How can you possibly have informed consent without the same info that you hope to glean?
I think it’s presumptuous to conclude from afar where someone’s affliction lies on a scale of suffering.
People should be free to do with their bodies what they choose. To describe and act on their subjective experience of themselves as they see fit, not as a third party deems they ought to.
Calling many of these therapies "compassionate" is a bit of a stretch after you learn about their side effects...
I am personally hopeful for this technology. I know it will be able to improve the lives of loved ones who both need and want it. I am also afraid of a technology that can decide my thoughts one way or another...
That said, I'll take two.
If this tech could be made to work flawlessly, it would be the gate to all the SciFi cyborg stuff, including body enhancements, "telepathy", etc.
Also, as a "side effect", it would open a path to fully immersive VR, as in Matrix, Snow Crash, Neuromancer, etc - with all the upsides and downsides of those scenarios.
All that "just" from hooking up motor and sensor neurons. And then people would probably start and mess with neurons that are involved in cognitive functions and the consciousness.
If generative AI had potential for cultish behavior, I think that will pale in comparison to this stuff.
I recently watched an episode where there was a bit about "Don't date robots" and it had me absolutely rolling, but also hit pretty close to home in 2025
I also don't trust the current brand of tech billionaires to handle this stuff responsibly - if they aren't specifically aiming for those dystopian scenarios even.
Based on all of Musk's past behavior, he doesn't exactly strike me as a guy who would deeply care for the disabled or make it his life's mission to cure spinal cord injuries - or even to grant super powers with no strings attached to the average person.
But he does seem like the kind of person who obsesses about the "next stage of evolution of the human race"...
Older implants are notorious for having that issue - and while scarring doesn't appear to hurt the brain all that much, it sure does hurt the connectivity.
The usual "bed of nails" Utah array typically deteriorates massively within 6 months. Neuralink's very first human implant has lasted for what, a year and a half already? It had issues with dislodged electrodes, which must have hurt the interface quality, but it still remains usable. That's a damn good sign.
can they wire up the neurons that control ear twitch muscles to something useful e.g. "Open terminal" shortcut?
Pretty much. You could do something like that with non-invasive consumer-grade BCIs already though. What we really need to see is more distinct "keypresses" you can listen for. It's my understanding that something like "imagining pushing/pulling a heavy object" can be read clearly enough, while "twitching your left ear" gets lost in the noise.
It's a long way to go before we can replace the 400 keystrokes per minute, 104/105 distinct keys bandwidth of a keyboard.
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 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.
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.
no before/after video, no third party report, there's nothing here but puffery... half the article goes on to promote robots
It's not like he's having to rate his level of happiness here, these are physical benefits
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.
this is why it's worthless without a third party review of conditions
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.
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)
Its a promising first sign, but that's all. I think you have unrealistic expectations if you expect rigorus science on the cost/benefit after just one experimental procedure. Stuff like this takes time.
The mere fact he didn't die from the procedure is probably a success in and of itself.
They're relevant because this was almost certainly written by a PR firm being paid by Musk to resuscitate his 32% approval rating.
https://www.parkinson.org/living-with-parkinsons/treatment/s...
DBS, like you said, is rather course tech and actually quite old technology. Doctors still don't entirely know why it works, so the adjustment is often experimental. In fact prior to specialized MRI machines that they use during surgery now, the patients would remain awake during the placement (brain surgery) of the electrodes so that the surgeons would know when the placement was "correct" based on real-time assessment of their symptoms. Now they do it under MRI, but the point being it's far from an exact science.
Can't wait to see what the future holds as they improve on it. Hard to imagine a world where his symptoms are fully managed (PD is progressive degeneration, so his symptoms, even with DBS are gradually worsening with time), but it was also hard to imagine how DBS could overnight change his life in the ways it did.
The potential of brain interface technology is truly incredible -- both for good and ill.
For those interested in their clinical trials:
https://neuralink.com/trials/
Before Neuralink, there was no major investment into BCI tech as far as eye could see - because medicine is where innovation goes to die. We've gone from Utah arrays in 1990 to Utah arrays in 2020. All while computing and AI - the other key enablers of neural interfaces - advanced in leaps and bounds.
So does everyone else who tries to create new things. Edison had dumb ideas, too, like his mining ideas. The Wrights also had dumb ideas like their persistence with wing warping, and the canard stabilizer.
The sub thing didn't hurt anyone, it was an emergency so he didn't have much time to think about it, so really it's uncharitable to slam him for trying to help.
Do you think his rockets are dumb ideas, too? Starlink? Tesla?
He said a lot more than that, and none of it nice. He definitely threw the first punch in this exchange
> Unsworth had mocked Musk’s submarine in an interview with CNN, deeming it a “PR stunt” and saying Musk should “stick his submarine where it hurts”.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/05/elon-musk...
And he is an attention whore who will go after people who are dismissing his ideas. The cave guys in Thailand had to waste precious time thinking about his submarine. If Musk had really been willing to help, he would have done testing in quiet and published things only when it was clear that it worked. But he is an attention whore because he knows it's good for business.
Same for DOGE. They could have done their work in quiet and with deliberation. Instead they fired quickly some random people whose work they didn't understand or like.
His amazing track record with success means his ideas merit more attention than your ideas or mine.
> The cave guys in Thailand had to waste precious time
insulting Musk on CNN. They didn't have to do that. They could have simply said "no thank you, we'll handle it".
> But he is an attention whore because he knows it's good for business.
Yes, offering his company's considerable engineering talent and resources for free is pure evil. Sheesh.
> Instead they fired quickly
They didn't have the people to evaluate tens of thousands of individuals, nor did they have several years to do it in. The way they proceeded was the only practical way. It's the way all organizations above a certain size cut costs when hemorrhaging cash.
That's not a fair take. This isn't "just a thing", this leads to massive financial gain by someone whose now a very influential power into people's lives from his involvement in politics and other circles of influence.
People can do good and bad at the same time, and if you're impacted by the bad things the person does, the good doesn't excuse it, and you'd want to stop them from doing more bad, it makes sense not to cheer on the good things they do that then fuels their effort into the bad things.
There can be disagreement on if they are doing bad, but to someone who believes so, it's a rational stance to not cheer on what can further fuel what they consider bad.
- The people getting it are in very rough shape and even a tiny bit of improved ability to control their environment is a tremendous gift to them - Musk seems to be busy playing with his other toys - We're far to early in this tech's progress for enshitification to start
Much as I dislike Musk, for the sake of all the people with debilitating conditions that this could help, I wish him phenomenal success with this project.
OTOH, I don't trust him to manage this as a product in an ethical way. What's the DBI equivalent of locking you in a car to drown?
Could be for saltiness over his politics. Could be for skepticism that he can deliver (robotaxi, Mars, etc). Could be for wariness that he'll turn it to shit like USDS, Twitter, and Tesla's finances.
That said, if you need this, the security side of it is a secondary concern to the very immediate quality of life improvement.
Many tech professionals work on projects that effect people's lives in very serious ways. But a lot of folk seem to feel a bit of meaninglessness in this career and the threshold of making a mistake isn't very high. If it's an off day, sloppy work yesterday can be fixed with another PR.
Building something that is meant to attach to someone's brain would be quite the burden to carry.
I get your point but, there's a lot of foreign objects going in by the way of various pores and openings. Biological beings are surprisingly resilient & fragile at the same time.
Pacemakers are somewhat similar devices that get implanted into bodies and still effectively are "foreign objects".
Brave and/or incredibly desperate.
only if you care
My wife went through semi-expetimental therapy (at that time) for her MS. It was tough but ultimately a net benefit.
It all depends on what is at stake - I would consider Ozempic for some weight loss but prefer, for now, go for no sugar and moderate portions. This is not life changing for me so I indeed prefer people who will benefit way more from it to go first.
If you're just using it for weight loss and aren't diabetic, you have no increase in risk.
This is also why your weight loss should be monitored by a doctor.
Brain surgery isn't exactly an industry where "move fast and break things" is an acceptable approach - especially when you are the patient. Considering Neuralink's historical record, going first sounds like a horrible idea to me.
No different than checking an ID at the airport, really.
What historical record? This article is about their first human participant.
> Why would you not go first?
Nobody is forcing anybody to have the chip - my question was about the reasons behind not taking it for someone who is blind, as a matter of curiosity. It is obvious that everyone will react differently.
As I mentioned, my wife went for that and it was quite a ride initially. You do not want to be on the witnessing side of such treatments but I respect her choice despite the risks.
> How do you feel about being blind and paralyzed?
To what I replied
> How do you feel about not having THE sense that defines your whole life?
→ this meant "how would you fel if you lost THE sense that defines your life, such as loding your sight when you are an artist" (for example). The idea is that what is a disaster depends on people (this is what I meant in This is a matter of personal choice and weighing risks vs your life as it is.).
In other words - losing a sense can be so devastating that you can risk much more for the (large, tiny, incalculable?) risjk of losing even more. Everyone is free to decide.
Hope this is more clear now
The 20 years of US adventures in Iraq & Afghanistan led to many traumatic brain injury cases analyzed by modern medicine, and the chronic symptoms are worse than one might think.
Holy moly.
The reason you might think twice about going first is for that exact reason, there are risks. Plenty of blind people would prefer to stay as they are than be left worse off to a greater degree after undergoing the implant.
And as for which state one wants to be in, this is a matter of personal choice. I know that I will commit suicide right after I get a diagnosis of, say, Alzheimer's (after cleaning up my stuff). If I went blind and had a reasonable chance to get back to sight, then I would also go for it, weighing the risks.
It all boils down to what someone perceives as "better"
As for the rest--your other posts implicitly assume that everyone else shares your choices and priorities--and if not then they aren't relevant. (BTW, there is strong evidence showing neither you nor anyone else knows what they would do after receiving such diagnoses.)
Sure, but when you eat sugar in several forms and overeat generally, you statistically get fatter. This works the other way round too. There are myriads of specific cases on the sides of the bell curve but the solution for the everyday Joe is to eat less, more healthily. Practicing sports helps too, but not so much (it is important for other health reasons)
> As for the rest--your other posts implicitly assume that everyone else shares your choices and priorities--and if not then they aren't relevant.
Wow, where do you get that from? The main point of asking questions here is not to be a troll and wait for internet fights but to get interesting insights from others. You may want to slow down with the pitchforks and such statements.
> (BTW, there is strong evidence showing neither you nor anyone else knows what they would do after receiving such diagnoses.)
Or not. You also have people who prepare for that in advance, with a clear decision path. I have, and have no doubts taht I will go for that having evidenced suffering in other people. Not everyone contacts a company such as Dignitas to make sure things are organized. Not everyone discusses with the funeral house details about their death at 45, not everyone has a "what to do when I die" booklet with key information (financial and how to de-smart the house :)). Not everyone gave a deeper thought about designing a kill-switch device that would poison them in case they are incapacitated.
Not everyone is like you so I would not be that fast in making such radical statements.
Absolutely the issue is overeating, but you don't safely achieve good energy balance or even a calorie deficit by cutting out all forms of sugar.
You could increase your fat intake and still stay the same weight.
It's okay to reduce your sugar intake, or intake of simple sugars but removing sugar altogether isn't the right way to go.
I realized I overeat, mostly because I stay at the table longer with family and friends (hey, I am French! :)) and I eat too much before I realize that I am full. Or even realize I am full but what the heck, this nicely looking petit four is inviting.
So I decided to follow the JEFH approach (Just Eat Fucking Half). I did not change a lot in what I eat but mistly how much. I do not drink any sodas (we are trained in France since kindergarden to only drink water at meals) and getting rid of the sweet parts was not that of an effort. I removed most of the unhealthy stuff, though I was not eating much of that anyway (all kind of sausage and hams we have here, and heavily processed food).
I also do some sport, but not to lose weight.
I lost 16 kg effortlessly, and now need more effort to lose 15 more - this is going to be significantly more difficult. The main blockage is my lazyness and lack of self-control (and possibly some ilness I have but that would be too easy to put everything on that).
I have everything to succeed: a healthy eating country, money for any kind of food I need, a very high quality enterprise restaurant where I eat healthy food (and cheap), a place where I can easily practice sports.
So yes, I do not follow a strictly scientific method, but rather some common sense and reasonable self restrain. Ah, I also have a wife that I am afraid of and who watches with a stern eye what I am eating.
>Wow, where do you get that from?
I mean, right off the bat, you started with "If you are blind it cannot be worse" which is a pretty big assumption that being blind is so horrible and makes your life so worthless, that risking your life to reverse it seems like the obvious choice.
There are other risks of course, which I addressed in the comments (basically, it is for an individual to decide whether they want to accept risks, also in the case where the risks are not quantifiable)
I wrote about calories OUT.
In respect for dang I won't comment or engage further.
286 more comments available on Hacker News