Netizens reacted with skepticism to Elon Musk’s announcement that Neuralink had obtained approval to begin human testing of its neural chips. A Business Insider report suggested that a businessperson behind the project faced questions about intent as the plan moved toward implanting a chip in the brain.
Not everyone welcomed the news about Neuralink’s trials. The public conversation often framed the technology and its brain implantation in a wary light, with critics urging caution and weighing potential risks alongside potential benefits.
One commenter noted the uncertainty about how the human body would respond to a foreign object inside the skull and warned that the initial trial participants could be seen as test subjects in a controversial way.
While some critics directed their ire at Musk personally, others focused on Neuralink and the broader implications of such a device. They warned of the possibility that a seemingly benevolent project could be used to exert control, describing Musk’s actions as attention-seeking and potentially manipulative.
Concerns persisted that Neuralink’s stated goal of aiding paralyzed individuals might serve as a pretext for a broader objective involving control through implanted technology. A Twitter user expressed doubt about the intent behind the project, while another dismissed trust in Musk or any associated ventures.
On the night of May 26, Neuralink reportedly obtained regulatory clearance to begin human clinical trials. Details about participant enrollment and study protocols were expected to be released in the near term, with researchers preparing recruitment strategies and timelines.
Alexander Kaplan, a renowned professor in neurophysiology and neurointerfaces at Lomonosov Moscow State University, commented publicly that Neuralink’s chip might become integrated with brain tissue over time and could require periodic replacement or adjustment as part of long-term considerations for patients and clinicians alike.