Monkey MindPong

Monkey MindPong

Pager, a nine year old Macaque, plays MindPong with his Neuralink.

www.neuralink.com

You may also like...

48 Responses

  1. MyUsernamesThis says:

    “return to monke”

  2. Dave Lee on Investing says:

    And I didn’t even know that monkeys could play pong, let alone with just their mind.

    • djkaye youtube says:

      @OverSouL a computer that can learn – if it’s just a computer running through a scripted program it’s not AI. This computer is just running through a set of instructions, which may seem intelligent but at the end of the day isn’t real AI.

    • OverSouL says:

      @djkaye youtube can’t you see the implication of this kind of technology? a computer is gonna become AI one day and it is reading your brain all the time, yes in the video it’s the monkey who’s in control however at the back stage theres a computer reading/decoding/analyzing its signals and behaviours, how do you know the computer doesn’t have machine learning algorithm in it?

    • OverSouL says:

      @djkaye youtubethey are using it to advance AI, period. you are so fucking naive

    • OverSouL says:

      @djkaye youtube i am not talking about this computer, i am talking about the practice. you can feed the data and signals to let the computer learn and predict human behaviour

    • Money Mania says:

      I want you to think about this. To my knowledge no human has ever played anything using only their mind , now a monkey just showed us it can do it. The possibilities !!!

  3. Divyang Malvi says:

    Got goosebumps after they removed joystick and monkey continues.

  4. Starstuff58 says:

    1950: monkeys are for circuses
    2021: monkeys start streaming on twitch

  5. Remco de Rooij says:

    1. Get fed 2 gallons of banana smoothie
    2. Play vidya games
    3. Get rewarded with banana

    Good times.

    • Mr Procrastination says:

      @Isabel Goss it’s literally fixed to the skull if it could go into your brain your skull would have to be bendy or something lol you’d have bigger problems than something hitting your brain if your skull could

    • Isabel Goss says:

      @Mr Procrastination I probably just have bad sources, but I thought it was such a problem that they had to keep the monkeys in small enclosures so that they couldn’t play around and dislodge the neuralink (which happened according to my info to multiple subjects).

      I’m genuinely curious what my source was referring to, I don’t like being misinformed

    • CrippleX89 says:

      @Isabel Goss brain tissue go brrr

    • Epicness Productions LLC. says:

      @Imię Nazwisko my brother sits in his room all day, plays games, and eats Doritos 😂

    • 2freeIvX says:

      @TsulFi lol. When they try it on animal the theory of chances of surviving are already high. They are starting with human soon.

  6. neokCS says:

    smart monke

    • Nikos Amok says:

      ​@ShadeCS 90% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests – whether on safety grounds or because they do not work
      Cancer drugs have the lowest success rate (only 5% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by psychiatry drugs (6% success rate), heart drugs (7% success rate) and neurology drugs (8% success rate).
      Using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides little statistically useful insight, our recent analysis found. The study also revealed that drug tests on monkeys are just as poor as those using any other species in predicting the effects on humans.
      Out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests, a recent study found
      Using mice and rats to test the safety of drugs in humans is only accurate 43% of the time, a recent study found
      Out of 48 cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency from 2009 to 2013 to treat 68 types of cancer, almost half showed no survival benefits according to a recent study. Even in cases where benefits were seen, the difference was judged to be ‘clinically insignificant’.

    • Nikos Amok says:

      @MrGonzonator INDEED it is an ordinary monkey and you are an ordinary human….Individuals with a higher level of moral reasoning skills showed increased gray matter in the of the brain implicated in complex social behavior, decision making, and conflict processing as compared to subjects at a lower level of moral reasoning, according to new research from the Perelman School of Medicine and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in collaboration with a researcher from Charité Universitätsmediz in Berlin, Germany The team studied students in the Masters of Business Administration (MBA) program at the Wharton School. The work is published in the June 3rd edition of the journal PLOS ONE.

    • ShadeCS says:

      @Nikos Amok none of this lowers the cost of a human life, and that is still the main reason animal testing is a practice. nobody is going to do anything on humans until it has been tested on animals.

    • Harsh Sharma says:

      @ShadeCS Exactly lmao I don’t get his arguement at all. Even if we have low success rates we still have some success at least. I’m a vegetarian and I love animals but trying to ban animal testing before humans is just outright stupidity imo and nothing but some sort of intellectual virtue signalling.

    • Nikos Amok says:

      @ShadeCS Alternatives to animal testing include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues (also known as in vitro methods), advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as in silico models), and studies with human volunteers.Alternatives are better
      Crude skin allergy tests in guinea pigs only predict human reactions 72% of the time. But a combination of chemistry and cell-based alternative methods has been shown to accurately predict human reactions90% of the time.
      The notorious Draize skin irritation test in rabbits can only predict human skin reactions 60% of the time. But using reconstituted human skin is up to 86% accurate.
      The standard test on pregnant rats to find out if chemicals or drugs may harm the developing baby can only detect 60% of dangerous substances. But a cell-based alternative (EST) has 100% accuracy at detecting very toxic chemicals.
      The cruel and unreliable shellfish toxin testing on live mice has now been fully replaced with a far superior analytical chemistry method that is better at protecting humans. https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/alternatives-animal-testing.
      Beside that when you are abusing a sentient being becouse you are expecting great outcomes from this abuse ,then your ethics are problematic.

  7. Robbin Rams says:

    Next video: Donkey Kong plays Donkey Kong

  8. JamieCurrant says:

    Incredible that that voiceover is generated entirely from the monkey’s thoughts :O

  9. JowlerGames says:

    Play videogames for food while recorded

    That’s a true twitch streamer right here

  10. Paul Gemperlein says:

    The real innovation here is the banana smoothie reward game console

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *