Education
Elon Musk’s controversial Neuralink completes first-ever chip implantation in human brain
From LifeSiteNews
The billionaire mogul said the subject ‘is recovering well.’
Billionaire mogul Elon Musk’s controversial company Neuralink successfully implanted a computer chip into the brain of a human subject for the first time on Sunday. The technology and its potential impact on humanity has sparked serious ethical concerns.
Musk announced the news in a post on his social media platform X (formerly Twitter) on Monday.
“The first human received an implant from [Neuralink] yesterday and is recovering well,” he said.
The first human received an implant from @Neuralink yesterday and is recovering well.
Initial results show promising neuron spike detection.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2024
Musk said the company’s first product, named “Telepathy,” “[e]nables control of your phone or computer, and through them almost any device, just by thinking.”
“Initial users will be those who have lost the use of their limbs,” he said. “Imagine if Stephen Hawking could communicate faster than a speed typist or auctioneer. That is the goal.”
The news comes after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved human trials for the novel technology under an “investigational device exemption” in May 2023. In September, the company announced it had “received approval from the reviewing independent institutional review board and our first hospital site to begin recruitment for our first-in-human clinical trial.”
Through the trials, researchers are attempting to determine whether Neuralink’s “BCI [brain computer interface]” functions to help “people with paralysis to control external devices with their thoughts.”
But restoring motor function to people with mobility impairments isn’t the only or even the primary goal of the brain chips, a reality Musk hinted at in his Monday social media posts.
The tech entrepreneur, who founded Neuralink in 2016, has been open about his belief in the technology’s potential to head off a dystopian, science fiction-esque outcome in which Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes “much smarter than humans” and essentially takes over society.
In a speech at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco in 2019, Musk explicitly stated that the “point” of Neuralink is “to secure humanity’s future as a civilization relative to AI.”
“After solving a bunch of brain-related diseases, there is the mitigation of the existential threat of AI,” he said, arguing the technology will “be really important at civilization level scale.” According to Musk, only by “merging” with AI will humans develop the capacity to stay ahead of and protect themselves from it.
Musk has suggested that the chips will ultimately enable users to do things like “save and replay memories,” functioning as a “backup drive for your non-physical being, your digital soul.”
“The future is going to be weird,” he joked.
RELATED: World Economic Forum speaker touts technology that allows your boss to monitor your brain activity
Critics of the technology have raised strong and persistent concerns about the general loss of privacy and autonomy occasioned by the widespread use of the technology, as well as the potential for it to be weaponized against citizens by tyrannical governments.
Researchers assessing the impact of neurotechnology have identified “four new rights that may become of great relevance in the coming decades” amid the rise of implantable devices: “the right to cognitive liberty, the right to mental privacy, the right to mental integrity, and the right to psychological continuity.”
The technology presents serious philosophical and religious dilemmas as well.
Writing on the issue for The Catholic Stand in 2019, Ph.D. candidate and pro-life writer Christopher Reilly posed several major questions related to the technology’s impact on human beings, including: “Will use of the technology further erode respect for human dignity? … Will our spiritual identities become confused or damaged?” and “Does the technology enhance or detract from living in holiness?”
“The only thing obvious about all of this is that we need the guidance of the Church and tech-savvy theologians and philosophers,” Reilly wrote. “[A]nd we need that guidance very soon.”
Better data, better outcomes for Alberta students |
To help schools address classroom complexity, Alberta’s government will begin collecting annual data on class size and composition.
Over the past three years, Alberta has welcomed more than 80,000 new students. With this unprecedented growth, classroom complexity and class sizes are among the biggest issues facing schools and teachers across the province.
To meet this challenge head on, Alberta’s government will work with school boards to gather yearly data on class sizes and composition. This information will be used to better understand staffing, student needs and classroom complexity. School boards will be required to submit data on Alberta classrooms by Nov. 24, and by January, this data will be made publicly available and will then be released annually.
Data collected on classroom complexity will help the province understand and address issues in schools, including class sizes, and support strategic investments in classrooms. Over the next three years, school boards will be provided with funding to hire 3,000 teachers and 1,500 new education assistants to support students with complex needs.
“We are ready to work with school boards and teachers to address classroom complexity and class sizes. We have heard them loud and clear and we are taking bold action to address these issues.”
Alberta’s government is establishing a Class Size and Complexity Task Force to begin work immediately on identifying solutions to the challenges facing Alberta classrooms. Alongside new annual data collection, the task force will ensure every student gets the attention and support they need to succeed. Details about the task force will be shared in the coming weeks.
“This data will provide essential insight into classroom realities, guiding evidence-based decisions and advocating for sustainable funding to address complexity, ensuring every student and educator in Alberta has the support to thrive.”
Quick facts
To inform decisions on addressing classroom complexity, data will be collected on total numbers of:
- all staff, per school, including roles
- substitute teachers
- district staff, listed by job title
- students, per classroom, per school
- severe, mild/moderate, and gifted/talented students, per classroom, per school
- English as an additional language (EAL) students, per classroom, per school
- refugee students, per classroom, per school
- First Nations, Métis and Inuit students, per classroom, per school
- Individualized Program Plans, per classroom, per school
- students waitlisted for assessment, per classroom, per school
- incidents of aggression and violence
- $55 million was provided in Budget 2025 to address classroom complexity.
- 8.6 billion is being invested to build and renovate more than 130 schools across the province.
- Budget 2025 is investing $1.6 billion in learning support funding to help meet students’ specialized learning needs.
- Budget 2025 is investing $1.1 billion to hire more than 4,000 teachers and educational staff.
Alberta
How one major media torqued its coverage – in the take no prisoners words of a former Alberta premier
(Editor’s note: I was going to write on the media’s handling of the Alberta government’s decision to order striking teachers back to work and invoke Section 33 of the Charter in doing so. But former Alberta premier Jason Kenney provided such a fulsome dissection of an absence of balance and its consequences in terms of public trust on X that I asked him if The Rewrite could publish it. He said yes and here it is – Peter Menzies.)
By Jason Kenney
This
”story” is an object lesson for why trust in legacy media has plummeted, and alt right media audiences have grown.
Here CTV “digital news producer” @AngeMAmato (she/her) writes a story about “experts” calling the use of Sec. 33 “a threat to democracy.”
Who are the experts?
A left wing academic, and a left wing activist. The latter, Howard Sapers, is a former Liberal MLA (which the article does not mention) for a party that is so marginal, it has not elected an MLA in over a decade.
For good measure CTV goes on to quote two left wing union bosses, who of course are predictably outraged.
A more accurate headline would be “Four people on the left angry about use of Notwithstanding Clause.” Which is the opposite of news. It’s the ultimate “Dog Bites Man” non-story.
Did the CTV producer make any effort to post a balanced story by asking for comment from academics / lawyers / think tanks who support use of Sec. 33? Did she call the @CDNConstFound or the @MLInstitute’s Judicial Power Project? Did she attempt to reach any of these four scholars, who just published their views in a @nationalpost op-ed last week?
Did she have an editor who asked why her story lacked any attempt at balance?
And did anyone at CTV pause for a moment to ponder how tendentious it is to accuse a democratically elected legislature of acting “undemocratically” by invoking a power whose entire purpose is to ensure democratic accountability?
She provides some historical context about prior use of Sec. 33. Why does that context not include the fact that most democratically elected provincial governments (including Alberta under Premier Lougheed, and Saskatchewan under NDP Premier Blakeney) agreed to adopt the Charter *only if* it included the Notwithstanding Clause to allow democratically elected Legislatures to ensure a democratic check and balance against the abuse of undemocratic, unaccountable judicial power?
Why does she not mention that for the first 33 years of the Charter era, the Canadian Courts ruled that there was no constitutionally protected right to strike?
Why doesn’t she quote an expert pointing out that Allan Blakeney defended the Saskatchewan Legislature’s 1986 use of Sec. 33 to end a strike as “a legitimate use of the Clause?” Or refer to Peter Lougheed’s 1987 commitment to use Sec. 33 if the courts invented a right to strike?
Many thoughtful criticisms can be levelled against Section 33. Being undemocratic is not one of them.
So why do we see so much agitprop like this masquerading as news from so many legacy media outlets?
IMO, there are two possible answers:
1) They are blind to their own biases; and / or
2) People like @AngeMAmato believe that they have a moral imperative to be “progressive journalists” which trumps the boringly old fashioned professional imperative to be objective and balanced.
Whatever the reason, “journalists” like this have no one to blame but themselves for growing distrust of legacy media, and the consequent emergence of non traditional media platforms.
 |
|
Invite your friends and earn rewards
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
In his own words: Stunning Climate Change pivot from Bill Gates. Poverty and disease should be top concern.
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
The painful return of food inflation exposes Canada’s trade failures
-
Crime2 days agoPublic Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should retire misleading ‘G7’ talking point on economic growth
-
Alberta1 day agoCanada’s heavy oil finds new fans as global demand rises
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoPro-freedom group warns Liberal bill could secretly cut off Canadians’ internet access
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days agoB.C. government laid groundwork for turning private property into Aboriginal land
-
Brownstone Institute18 hours agoBizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves
-
Justice2 days agoA Justice System That Hates Punishment Can’t Protect the Innocent
-
Daily Caller1 day agoNigeria Would Welcome US Intervention In Massacre Of Christians By Islamic Terror Groups