OpenAI makes ChatGPT ‘more direct, less verbose’

OpenAI makes ChatGPT ‘more direct, less verbose’

ChatGPT, OpenAI’s viral AI-powered chatbot, just got a big upgrade.

OpenAI announced today that premium ChatGPT users — customers paying for ChatGPT Plus, Team or Enterprise — can now leveraged an updated and enhanced version of GPT-4 Turbo, one of the models that powers the conversational ChatGPT experience.

This new model (“gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09”) brings with it improvements in writing, math, logical reasoning and coding, OpenAI claims, as well as a more up-to-date knowledge base. It was trained on publicly available data up to December 2023, in contrast to the previous edition of GPT-4 Turbo available in ChatGPT, which had an April 2023 cut-off.

“When writing with ChatGPT [with the new GPT-4 Turbo], responses will be more direct, less verbose and use more conversational language,” OpenAI writes in a post on X.

The ChatGPT update — which follows the GA launch on Tuesday of new models in OpenAI’s API, notably GPT-4 Turbo with Vision, which adds image understanding capabilities to the normally-text-only GPT-4 Turbo — arrives after an unflattering week for OpenAI.

Reporting from The Intercept revealed that Microsoft pitched OpenAI’s DALL-E text-to-image model as a battlefield tool for the U.S. military. And, according to a piece in The Information, OpenAI recently fired two researchers — including an ally of chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, who was among those who pushed for the ouster of CEO Sam Altman late last year — for allegedly leaking information.

Source link

Managing data use and privacy

Managing data use and privacy

A recent study from the IMF found almost 40 per cent of global employment is now exposed to AI in some way, be it through spotting patterns in data, or generating text or image-based content. As the realm of this technology expands, and more organisations employ it to boost productivity, so does the amount of data that algorithms consume. Of course, with great amounts of data come great responsibility, and the spotlight is on ethical considerations surrounding data’s use and privacy concerns.

Source: Shutterstock

The conversation around data misuse extends further than generative AI. Consumers are arguably savvier about whom they give their information to and the permissions they grant. This is a consequence of organisational data misuse in the past – individuals are fed up with spam texts and calls. Significant data breaches also frequently make the mainstream news, and word quickly spreads, tarnishing brand reputations.

In recent years, data regulations have tightened to help protect consumers and their information. However, we are only at the start of this journey with AI. While laws are being introduced elsewhere in the world to regulate the technology, like the EU’s AI Act, the Australian government has yet to reach that stage. Saying that, in September, Canberra agreed to amend the Privacy Act to give individuals the right to greater transparency over how their personal data might be used in AI. The government has been put under pressure by business groups to prevent AI causing harm and, in June 2023, a paper was published exploring potential regulatory frameworks. However, at the moment, the onus is primarily on individual organisations to handle their AI technologies responsibly. This includes where the initial training data is sourced and how user data is stored.

Using untrustworthy public data to train algorithms does have consequences. These include so-called ‘hallucinations’, where the AI generates incorrect information presented in a manner that appears accurate. Toxicity can also be an issue, where results contain inappropriate language or biases that can be offensive or discriminatory. Air Canada was recently ordered to pay damages to a passenger for misleading advice given by its customer service chatbot, resulting in them paying nearly double for their plane tickets.

On the other hand, if an organisation uses its own customer data for AI system training, it faces a distinct set of risks. Improper handling can result in the violation of data protection regulations, leading to heavy fines or other legal action. In December 2023, researchers at Google managed to trick ChatGPT into revealing some of its training material, and OpenAI is currently facing a number of lawsuits in relation to the data used to train its chatbot. In January, another data breach exposed that the Midjourney AI image generator was trained on the works of over 16,000 artists without authorisation, which could lead to significant legal action.

Source: Shutterstock

Many core business technologies, like contact centres, utilise large volumes of data, and these are often one of the first targets in a digital transformation. Continuous modernisation of CX is essential to meet the rising expectations of customers. AI instils new levels of intelligence in the platforms used by organisations, for example, anticipating customer needs, making tailored recommendations and delivering more personalised services.

Organisations need to evaluate platforms that have processes in place to ensure they safeguard data and privacy, especially if leveraging AI. So-called ‘green flags’ include compliance with the Notifiable Data Breach (NBD) scheme and the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS). Enabling consumer trust and confidence in how their sensitive data and transaction history are leveraged and stored is essential. Adherence to relevant governance means organisations are reducing the risk of fraud and security breach by improving data security and bolstering authentication methods, to name just a couple of necessary measures.

It can be easy to get in hot water when embarking on a new venture without expert guidance, and AI journeys are no exception. Partnering with a reputable organisation which understands how the technology best fits in a business can be the difference between success and failure. With Nexon’s expertise, organisations have successfully leveraged a range of AI-powered solutions, from Agent Assist and Co-Pilot tools that streamline customer support workflows, to Predictive Web Engagement strategies that deliver personalised digital experiences and increase sales.

Nexon has forged a strategic partnership with Genesys, a global cloud leader in AI-powered experience orchestration, which prioritises ethical data sourcing and customer privacy. Genesys is committed to understanding and reducing bias in generative AI models, which it uses in its software to automatically summarise conversations for support agents and auto-generate email content for leads and prospects. This is achieved through ‘privacy by design’ principles enacted from the inception of its AI development, an emphasis on transparency into how the technology is applied and the use of tools to find and mitigate possible bias.

Genesys envisions a future where ethical considerations play a central role in all AI applications. Genesys AI brings together Conversational, Predictive and Generative AI into a single foundation to enable capabilities that make CX and EX smarter and more efficient and delivers meaningful personalised conversations (digital & voice) between people and brands.

The company’s customer-centric approach ensures that its cloud platform and AI solutions meet ongoing needs and adhere to strict data, privacy and security protocols.

Source: Shutterstock

As AI elements are introduced, they are tested rigorously to ensure they do not violate the protections that its cloud platform promises. Unlike other solutions, Genesys AI was built securely from its inception. Genesys provides users with control over AI use, providing understanding of its impact on experiences and enabling continual optimisation for better outcomes. Additionally, it provides a thorough exploration of the transformative potential of AI and how to responsibly leverage its capabilities for unparalleled customer experiences. You can read more into this subject in the white paper ‘Generative AI 101

Genesys has named Nexon a Partner of the Year twice in a row, thanks to its proven experience and expertise in delivering integrated digital CX solutions. This partnership solidifies the two companies’ collaborative efforts to provide organisations with innovative AI-driven solutions while upholding the highest standards of data ethics and customer privacy. Through this strategic alliance, organisations can navigate the complexities of AI technology, harnessing its transformative potential and drive growth and customer satisfaction responsibly and sustainably.

Contact Nexon today to discover how its AI expertise can drive superior customer interactions and streamline your business operations.




Source link

Opportunities and challenges for SMBs

Opportunities and challenges for SMBs

  • For Japan, the integration of AI in various sectors shows a promising blend of innovation and caution.
  • The significant shortage of cybersecurity professionals in Japan underscores urgent and strategic responses to this growing gap.

Organizations and governments worldwide, including Japan, face the dual challenge of mitigating risks and embracing the rapid advancements in AI. This involves managing uncertainties while also accelerating innovation and adoption to reap the benefits of this transformative technology.

Japan’s unique position in AI

Although Japan is known for its cautious approach to risk, it is also renowned for its innovative contributions to technology, particularly in smart robotics and automotive AI. However, reports suggest that Japan’s prowess in AI-powered hardware does not equally extend to its software capabilities, making it reliant on foreign large language models for generative AI.

Japan faces unique AI development and adoption hurdles, including limited data availability and cultural attitudes towards business risk. These factors complicate the integration of AI technologies within traditional business frameworks.

A recent study by Barracuda, titled ‘SMB cyber resilience in Japan: Navigating through doubt to an AI-powered future,’ examines AI’s impact on small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs) in Japan. It reveals a mix of optimism about AI’s benefits and concerns about security, knowledge, and skill gaps.

The research underscores general optimism among smaller Japanese organizations about the positive effects of AI on business operations. The majority of these businesses anticipate that adopting AI solutions will lead to workforce reductions over the next two years—66% foresee fewer full-time employees, and 70% expect to rely less on freelancers and contractors. This trend is expected to lower costs and reduce the human resource demands on companies, though it also highlights a precarious future for workers in roles vulnerable to automation.

In addition to cost reduction, businesses expect AI to enhance operational efficiencies across various functions, including marketing and customer relations. Approximately 67% predict that AI tools will produce over half of their content soon, and 60% believe AI will become the primary interaction point for customers. Moreover, thanks to AI, 76% anticipate quicker and more accurate customer insights.

Strengthening cybersecurity through AI

On a broader scale, 65% of respondents are confident that AI tools can streamline their cybersecurity needs, reducing reliance on human security teams or third-party services. Given Japan’s acute shortage of cybersecurity professionals, integrating AI for automated threat detection and response is seen as essential for enhancing security across all business sizes.

Most organizations recognize the need for external assistance to fully leverage AI for business benefits. A significant majority of businesses surveyed—76%—indicate the necessity of partners for researching and exploring AI. The same proportion (77%) seek help with implementing AI solutions and managing these technologies on an ongoing basis. Security vendors and managed service providers in Japan are well-positioned to help smaller businesses exploit AI’s advantages.

The release of ChatGPT by OpenAI in November 2022 showcased the capabilities of generative AI tools in creating natural, engaging dialogues. Despite widespread attention, businesses exhibit cautious engagement with generative AI. Awareness does not equate to comprehensive understanding; 56% grasp the distinctions between generative AI and other AI types like machine learning, while 44% admit to limited or no understanding. Consequently, many Japanese companies impose restrictions on AI use due to potential risks.

Approximately 69% of businesses perceive risks with workplace generative AI usage. While 18% permit its use—6% broadly and 12% in limited team settings—62% do not officially sanction it, suggesting covert use that may heighten security risks. Concerns also include data protection (57% of respondents), the absence of regulatory frameworks (47%), and opaque AI decision processes (31%). Additionally, 13% fear AI systems being compromised by cyber attackers.

Risks of using generative AI

Risks of using generative AI (Source – Barracuda)

AI and cyber threat evolution

There’s notable uncertainty about AI’s role in evolving cyber threats. About 55% of businesses are unsure how AI could be utilized in email attacks, with similar uncertainty extending to denial-of-service (62%), malware (57%), API attacks (56%), and cyber espionage (55%).

Despite these uncertainties, email threats remain a prominent concern for Japanese small businesses, with 53% highlighting account takeover attacks as a top threat. This form of identity theft allows attackers to misuse accounts, potentially leading to phishing scams, data theft, and more. Other significant threats include phishing and social engineering (37%), with ransomware also critical (39% reported it as a top concern, predominantly initiated via email).

Cyber threats concerning businesses in Japan

Cyber threats concerning businesses in Japan (Source – Barracuda)

Survey participants generally understand the role of AI in fortifying cyber defenses, especially in areas like email security and employee cybersecurity training. However, there’s some ambiguity about AI’s effectiveness in other domains, possibly due to these areas being less familiar to smaller enterprises.

When asked which AI-enhanced security measures would improve their organizational safety, 36% pointed to AI-enhanced email security, especially against sophisticated threats like deepfakes. Another 24% believed AI could support more tailored, frequent training programs. The benefits of AI in continuous threat intelligence and response, as performed by Security Operations Centers (SOCs), were not as clearly understood.

The survey reveals a deficiency in AI-specific practices and policies needed for responsible AI usage. While 52% of businesses conduct employee training on AI use and vulnerabilities, only 35% have formal policies dictating AI usage. Even fewer have comprehensive governance structures in place, such as legal frameworks. This indicates a lack of control and management over AI applications within businesses.

The latest ICS2 Cybersecurity Workforce Study shows that Japan has nearly half a million cybersecurity professionals, a notable 23.8% increase from the previous year, contrasting with a global average of 8.7%. Despite this growth, the demand far exceeds supply, with a shortage of 110,254 professionals, marking a 97.6% increase year-over-year — significantly higher than the global average of 12.6%. This gap is unprecedented compared to other nations evaluated in the ICS2 study.

This macro perspective mirrors smaller businesses’ daily challenges, particularly with AI-driven cyber threats.

Makoto Suzuki, Regional Sales Director for Japan at Barracuda, highlights the survey’s findings: Japanese SMBs recognize AI’s benefits for enhancing business productivity but remain cautious about the cyber threats it poses. Suzuki notes, “This could hold businesses back from harnessing the full potential of AI to revolutionize business performance and competitiveness by optimizing processes, reducing costs, improving quality, and providing new insights and ideas.”





Source link

Who Benefits as Microsoft Splits Teams from Office?

Who Benefits as Microsoft Splits Teams from Office?

  • Microsoft separates Teams from Office Suite to meet EU regulations and reshape competition.
  • Unbundling Teams may not significantly alter global enterprise purchasing outside the EU.
  • Microsoft’s move could slightly benefit Zoom and Slack, though market dynamics are expected to remain steady.

Last year, the European Commission took a significant step by launching a comprehensive investigation into Microsoft’s practice of integrating its Teams application with the Microsoft 365 and Office 365 suites, targeting the business sector specifically. Microsoft, recognizing the importance of this inquiry, committed to fully cooperating with the Commission and expressed its determination to find solutions that would mitigate any regulatory concerns.

In a notable development reported by Reuters, Microsoft announced its decision to offer its Teams application globally—a chat and video conferencing tool—separately from its Office suite. This strategic move, coming six months after these products were decoupled in Europe, was designed to preemptively address potential EU antitrust penalties.

The strategic response from Microsoft to offer Teams separately

The investigation by the European Commission was triggered by a 2020 complaint from Slack, a Salesforce-owned workspace messaging application. Since its integration into Office 365 in 2017 at no extra cost, and its replacement of Skype for Business, Teams experienced a rapid rise in popularity. This was particularly true for its video conferencing features during the pandemic. Competitors have contended that this bundling strategy unfairly advantages Microsoft. In response to these concerns, Microsoft initiated the separate sale of these products in the EU and Switzerland on October 1 of the preceding year.

In detailing the company’s revised strategy through a blog post, Nanna-Louise Linde, Vice President for European Government Affairs at Microsoft, introduced a new pricing model for unbundled products. This adjustment, offering a reduction of US$2.17 monthly or US$26.02 annually, aims at serving the core enterprise clientele in the EEA and Switzerland more effectively.

Furthermore, Linde clarified that Teams would be accessible as a standalone offering, with a pricing set at US$5.42 per month or US$65.04 annually, catering to new enterprise clients. Those who previously integrated Teams into their suite have the flexibility to maintain their existing setup or transition to a Teams-excluded package.

Reiterating the company’s dedication to transparency and customer satisfaction, a Microsoft spokesperson conveyed the decision to extend the unbundling initiative worldwide. This adaptation, inspired by the European Commission’s feedback, is intended to offer multinational corporations enhanced flexibility in their licensing options across various regions.

Reflecting on Microsoft’s historical adjustments in response to antitrust challenges, particularly the lawsuit from the Justice Department in 1998, analysts like Rishi Jaluria from RBC Capital Markets point out that the current separation of Teams from Office marks a significant, though not unprecedented, shift in strategy. Despite these changes, the integration of Teams into business operations suggests that the immediate impact on the market might be limited.

Data from Sensor Tower indicates a consistent user base for the Teams mobile app, with monthly active users remaining steady at around 19 million in both the fourth quarter of 2023 and the first quarter of 2024. This stability suggests that the unbundling in Europe has not adversely affected the platform’s popularity.

Looking ahead: Licensing flexibility and pricing strategies

With the introduction of new commercial Microsoft 365 and Office 365 suites, excluding Teams for areas beyond the EEA and Switzerland, Microsoft is also presenting a standalone option for enterprise customers. Starting April 1, these offerings allow customers to continue their current licensing arrangements or explore the new, unbundled options. The pricing structure for Office suites without Teams ranges from US$7.75 to US$54.75, with the standalone Teams option priced at US$5.25, although variations may occur based on country and currency.

Despite proactive measures, Microsoft could still encounter EU antitrust challenges, with concerns arising over pricing strategies and the interoperability of competing messaging services with Office Web Applications. Analysts like Gil Luria from D.A. Davidson suggest that Microsoft’s forward-thinking approach may somewhat mitigate future regulatory scrutiny. Given Microsoft’s history of incurring 2.2 billion euros in EU antitrust fines over the last decade for similar bundling practices, the company is keenly aware of the stakes involved.

J.P. Gownder, a Forrester VP and Principal Analyst, regards the unbundling of Teams as a strategic maneuver by Microsoft in anticipation of regulatory actions from the EU and possibly other regions. This strategy not only levels the competitive landscape by providing a choice to consumers but also simplifies the licensing landscape for multinational companies, which might face complexities under varying regional agreements.

Gownder also anticipates that pricing will emerge as a critical discussion point, with Microsoft potentially advocating for higher individual pricing for components formerly bundled, citing increased operational costs. This move could necessitate substantial marketing efforts to clearly communicate the value and structure of the unbundled offerings.

While Gownder foresees regulatory bodies potentially viewing any price increases critically, interpreting them as punitive measures against EU companies, he believes that the essential purchasing behaviors of enterprises, particularly outside the EU, are unlikely to be significantly altered. They may continue to favor bundled offerings, which are now enhanced by the addition of an unbundled option.

Gownder further speculates on the potential savings for organizations currently using Zoom, which might find financial benefits in dropping the Teams component for an unbundled SKU, though the exact financial implications will depend on the forthcoming pricing details. Zoom and Slack are poised to capitalize on this market shift, though the fundamental dynamics of the market are expected to remain largely unchanged.

The competitive landscape and potential beneficiaries

This strategic pivot could be an advantage for Zoom, which has faced challenges in competing with Microsoft’s comprehensive suite of communication tools. Slack, having been integrated into Salesforce and having previously lodged an antitrust complaint with the European Commission in 2020, has been particularly vocal about the need for such a separation, viewing the bundling of Teams with Office as competitively unfair.

Despite occasional preferences for Zoom, the integrated offering of Teams with Office 365 has consistently attracted customers. This trend was highlighted by CNBC, which pointed out Zoom’s slowing revenue growth from explosive rates in 2020 and 2021 to single digits in recent quarters. Mizuho analysts suggest that Teams’ unbundling could help mitigate some of Zoom’s challenges in retaining enterprise customers.

Over the past year, Microsoft has reported nearly US$53 billion in revenue from its Office suite, including Teams, marking a 14% increase from 2022. The platform’s impact is undeniable, with Teams now boasting over 320 million active users monthly.

Salesforce’s acquisition of Slack in 2021 for US$27 billion, the company’s largest purchase to date, underscored the high stakes in the communication and collaboration tool market. Slack’s 2020 complaint to the European Commission against Microsoft’s practices highlighted ongoing competitive tensions, reminiscent of the ‘browser wars’ of the 1990s.

However, Slack’s stance towards Teams was more measured in 2019, with then-CEO Stewart Butterfield acknowledging the preference of many top customers for Slack over Teams, despite their use of Microsoft’s Office 365 suite.

Last year’s reports that Microsoft would allow companies to choose whether to include Teams in their productivity software subscriptions signaled a strategic shift intended to preclude further EU competition investigations. Subsequently, Microsoft began offering separate subscriptions for Teams and other productivity software across 31 European countries, aligning with the European Commission’s investigation into the bundling practices.





Source link

How Elon Musk is redefining AI and tech boundaries

How Elon Musk is redefining AI and tech boundaries

  • Elon Musk is revolutionizing tech with xAI and Neuralink, extending AI chatbot Grok to all X premium subscribers and breaking new ground in brain-computer interface technology.
  • Neuralink showcases the potential of brain-computer interfaces with a patient playing chess through mind controls.

Elon Musk has declared that his artificial intelligence startup xAI will extend access to its chatbot Grok to all premium subscribers of the social media platform X. This announcement, made in a post on X, does not delve into further details but signifies a shift from the chatbot’s previous limitation to Premium+ subscribers. Amidst advertisers withdrawing from X, Musk is pivoting away from advertising revenue, focusing instead on enhancing subscription services.

In a move that critiques the profit-oriented use of technology by major tech firms such as Google, Musk plans to make Grok open-source. This follows his lawsuit against OpenAI, where he accuses the organization of straying from its non-profit roots towards profit-driven motives. By open-sourcing Grok, Musk aligns xAI with entities like Meta and France’s Mistral, which have also made their AI models publicly available, encouraging innovation and engagement from the wider community.

Elon Musk posted the availability of Grok for all premium subscribers

Elon Musk posted the availability of Grok for all premium subscribers (Source – X)

What’s going on with Elon Musk and the world of AI development?

Moreover, Musk’s legal confrontation with OpenAI, which he co-founded and eventually left, highlights his concerns about the ethical trajectory of AI development. Despite previously endorsing profit-focused strategies, including a merger proposal with Tesla, Musk’s latest initiatives and comments, especially at the AI Safety Summit in the UK, advocate for ethical AI development and the adoption of open-source principles, with the aim of developing a “maximum truth-seeking AI” at xAI.

This strategic direction not only challenges the methodologies of OpenAI and Google but also ignites a debate among technology leaders and investors about the implications of making AI technology open-source. While such transparency can foster innovation, there are concerns about its potential misuse, underscoring the balance between technological advancement and ethical considerations.

As reported by BBC, Elon Musk’s Neuralink has showcased its first patient, who, using a brain implant, controlled a computer cursor and played online chess. In a nine-minute live stream on X, viewers witnessed Noland Arbaugh, paralyzed below the shoulders due to a diving accident, using the device. Arbaugh, who received the chip in January, described the surgery as “super easy.”

A demonstration of the controlled a computer cursor and played online chess through the brain

A demonstration of the controlled a computer cursor and played online chess through the brain (Source – X)

Arbaugh also recounted playing the video game Civilization VI for eight hours straight, facilitated by the brain implant, though he mentioned encountering some issues with the technology. The Neuralink device, about the size of a one-pound coin, is designed to be inserted into the skull, with tiny wires that can read neuron activity and send wireless signals to a receiver.

Following trials in pigs and demonstrations of monkeys playing a basic version of Pong, the FDA approved Neuralink for human testing in May 2023. Neuralink is among a growing number of firms and academic departments pushing the boundaries of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology.

In a parallel development, the École Polytechnique Fédérale in Lausanne, Switzerland, enabled paralyzed individual Gert-Jan Oskam to walk by simply thinking about moving, using electronic implants on his brain and spine that wirelessly relay thoughts to his legs and feet, as reported in Nature.

BCIs aim to capture some of the electrical impulses generated by the brain’s approximately 86 billion neurons, which facilitate movement, sensation, and thought. These impulses can be detected by non-invasive caps or directly via implanted wires, drawing significant research investment.

Musk has boldly claimed that Neuralink’s technology can restore sight in monkeys, branding this technology as “Blindsight.” He envisions this technology, initially offering low-resolution vision akin to early video games, eventually surpassing human visual capabilities. He assures that the procedures have been safe for the animals involved.

Neuralink’s advancements, including the “Telepathy” product enabling mind-controlled computer use, mark significant strides in the field. Following FDA approval for its first human trial, Neuralink released a video showing a quadriplegic patient playing chess through mind control, demonstrating the implant’s potential through 64 flexible threads that record and transmit brain signals.

Challenges and advances: Neuralink’s journey to human trials

According to Reuters, a U.S. health policy lawmaker has queried the FDA about its prior inspection of Neuralink, before approving it for human trials. This follows reports of issues discovered during inspections related to animal testing practices at Neuralink. These findings emerged shortly after Neuralink announced FDA clearance for human testing of its brain implants, which enable paralyzed individuals to control computers with their minds.

Representative Earl Blumenauer expressed concerns in a letter to the FDA about overlooked evidence from animal testing violations dating back to 2019. He questioned how the FDA reconciled these reports with its decision to authorize Neuralink’s human trials, amidst allegations of rushed experiments leading to unnecessary animal suffering and potential data integrity risks.

In response, the FDA indicated it would directly address Blumenauer’s inquiries, noting its post-approval inspection did not identify any significant safety concerns for the trial. Neuralink, having commenced human testing, recently demonstrated the implant’s capabilities in a live stream, highlighting the potential of brain-computer interfaces despite regulatory and ethical scrutiny.

This exploration into brain-computer interface technology, with companies like Synchron and Blackrock Neurotech also advancing in human trials, demonstrates the potential for patients to control digital interfaces solely through thought. The investigation into Neuralink’s regulatory approval underscores the critical balance between innovation in medical technology and the necessity of maintaining safety and ethical standards.

As the field progresses, the discussions around Neuralink’s practices and the FDA’s oversight reflect broader questions about the pace of technological advancement and the frameworks needed to ensure its responsible development.

The scrutiny faced by Neuralink, arising from concerns over its animal testing procedures and the subsequent approval for human trials, brings to light the challenges of pioneering medical devices within the rapidly evolving domain of brain-computer interfaces. It emphasizes the importance of rigorous regulatory processes that not only facilitate technological breakthroughs but also safeguard the welfare of both animal subjects and human participants.




Source link