There is an approved treatment in the US where one can have one or both eyes removed and replaced with devices that restore vision to the quality of that of an average 30 year old.
There are many people who think that AGI is around the corner and will solve all of our problems. Here is one real world problem that challenges that view.
Why is it hard? The solution will involve connecting to or replacing the optic nerve. Retinal ganglion cells will be removed and the solution will involve attaching to the brain side of their axons or innervating the post synaptic neurons directly. The solution will need to recreate the neuronal activity of healthy ganglion cells. Brain signals controlling saccades and accomodation will need to be received from the brain and interpreted correctly.
A separate question has been created that has no requirement of there being a market. https://manifold.markets/capybara/will-replacement-eyes-be-available?r=Y2FweWJhcmE
Edits: I edited the wording to be less proscriptive on how the solution could be achieved.
1,000People are also trading
I feel that the resolving factors of this pool are still presuming a lot about how vision would be restored. Is the resolve to Yes only if the vision is equivalent to a 30 year old? Or must the solution also involve the connection to the optic nerve to resolve to Yes? The reason I’m asking is because currently BCIs that would make this technology most likely possible are a direct connection to the Brain and then wireless to the peripheral(eyes) in the case of this example, not through the optical nerve. It might prove easier in the end to just connect to the optical nerve, if intact but the direct connection to brain and then wireless to any actual peripheral seem safer for long term use and future upgrade path as technology advances.
@JonathanClifton when you say direct connection to the brain, which neurons are you imagining the connection is made to? “Connection” doesn’t need to be via copper wires or axons and so wireless is not excluded as being part of the solution. Connection to optic nerve is not a requirement: “connecting to or replacing”. The requirement is that the neurons that send & receive signals from the eye are not bypassed in the solution.
@capybara I mean something like neuralink. Or eventually a neural lace type of technology where the actual peripheral or in this case eyes/cameras don’t actually have a direct connection to minimize continuous invasive procedures as tech evolves but is connected wirelessly. If you have a device implanted once that directly interfaces with the needed area in the brain and that has a bandwidth that is equal to what the brain can at most handle then you never have to replace that again or do invasive surgeries just replace the device doing the sensing as things might break or a better version is invented. My original question is will this pool resolve YES as soon as any tech imaginable or not imagined gives a person vision equal to a 30 year old without impairment or is the resolve to YES also depending the device being physically connected to the actual nerves where the original eyes where located?
@JonathanClifton I don’t think the question rules out a wireless connection. It rules out skipping parts of the brain. I want to rule out the case where parts of your brain much be removed or disabled in order to replace an eye.
I realize the word “market” has connotations of “available” that can be met without an actual market. My original intent was “widely available”, but I personally prefer when questions stick to their wording, so I will clarify as follows.
If the eyes are widely available for free, then is question resolves YES. This will be viewed as on the market for $0.
If there is exclusive distribution that doesn’t allow people to trade for access, this resolves No. This includes a benevolent utilitarian AI choosing an order to distribute to the general population–and this order not allowing people to make offers to skip the queue.
Edit: I created a second question that removes any mention of market.
@RemNi Resloves NO if the output is not targeting the neurons which the retinal ganglion cells connect to. I will update the wording of the question slightly to allow for the optic nerve not needing to remain.
@MaxHarms Keeping to the wording, if the US ceases to exist then this resolves NO.
A gradual replacement of the eye counts as long as there is the option for all parts to be replaced. The intent is to allow a wide variety of diseases to be treated. For example: resolves NO if the vitreous is not replaceable.