Talk:Neuralink

Length

The length of the article is about 900 words. I expect the author to come back to this to extend its length.

Structure

The introduction is good. I would make it a better summary of the entire article though. It goes off on its own way discussing Link. I think Link should be a section that you dive into below. Then you can summarize what you’ve written in that section and the rest below after explaining what NeuraLink is (which you did).

The history section flows so well. I loved reading this and found it incredibly engaging. I also don’t know much about NeuraLink anyway. This section is well-cited and I believe you have a strong foundation for the rest of the article. The only advice I’d give is that after you finish the rest of the article, as in the introduction, make sure there aren’t any loopholes you missed with technology, ethics, and other factors that you may write about coming into play. Many of these things should also be mentioned in the history section. Thus far though, I think your history section portrays the rest of the article’s points like BMI and innovation quite well in a historically explained order.

The background BMI section is a great for diving into how the technology works. I think it’s explained well under circumstances of the complex topics that we’re talking about. I’d consider moving the BMI’s history to the history section though. What you could do, is if you are going to talk about different technologies and their histories, you could add headings underneath history for each historical technology’s timeline.

NeuraLink’s section looks good, but I’d develop it more. I think you need to explain further how it distinguishes itself apart from other BMI technology. To do this, I’d look at the other BMIs that exist. Identify how their products are different and what makes their companies different. You gave points about how NeuraLink is generally different, but specifics would be huge. This would also help you hit your word-count goal.

Clarity

I don’t really have a grasp of the issue explicitly stated yet, but I assume the author will use the issues section to suggest how BMI technology could be unethical. Humans and technology blending these things together in our brains could be dangerous and not “morally acceptable.” The whole idea reminds me of Limetown. You should watch that show, maybe even mention it. It’s about a small sample size of residents who begin using BMI tech to talk to one another without speaking and the ethical implications they run into, making the program fall apart.

I’d analyze psychological implications and concerns. You could probably find reports on how this type of technology could go wrong, or has gone wrong in the past. I’m sure there’s also plenty of psychological and theological documentation for why this technology could wreck people’s brains, relationships, and beliefs.

Objective Reporting

The language of the article seems neutral. I couldn’t find anything opinionated. From the information provided thus far, there is lots of factual information regarding how NeuraLink and BMIs function. I think that if the author continues on this track when going into advances and issues then the point of view will not be biased. I would definitely dive into how Elon Musk and NeuraLink view the product, but I would also analyze how others view the product. Look at psychology reports, other engineering firms/companies who do this work, or even average individuals who are analyzing what this company is doing and the implications that it may have on humanity’s ethics.