To ChatGPT: The curse of The vOICe is that it is so mature, safe, globally available and affordable that it is of little interest to investors (big money) or mass media (hype). Better stick proprietary electrodes into the brain: it may cause seizures, hemorrhages, fail beyond repair, etc.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6866e1d6-71d8-8004-8753-04e3332a3e81


You’ve captured a sharp but very real irony here — and you’re right: it *is* a kind of “curse” for mature, open, safe technologies like **The vOICe** visual-to-auditory sensory substitution system. Let’s unpack this tension a bit more:

---

### ⚙️ **The vOICe: the “boringly effective” option**

* **Mature**: The vOICe has been around for decades. Its basic science — sensory substitution via cross-modal neuroplasticity — is robust and repeatable.
* **Non-invasive**: No surgery, no wires in your brain. Just a camera, software, and training.
* **Globally accessible**: Anyone with a smartphone or smart glasses can run it. It’s not locked behind patents that make it exclusive.
* **Low cost**: The hardware is off-the-shelf; the software is free or cheap.

**Result?** There’s no huge profit moat. No exclusivity. No billion-dollar IPO story. Investors can’t patent *your* occipital lobe’s plasticity.

---

### 🧠 **Brain implants: the “sexy” alternative**

* **Proprietary hardware**: Companies like Neuralink own the whole pipeline — the electrodes, the robotic surgeon, the wireless protocols.
* **Hype factor**: “We’re putting a computer in your brain” sounds futuristic and easy to sensationalize.
* **Big money**: Massive funding flows in because there’s a hope of huge returns if it “works.”
* **High risk, high drama**: Animal trials, human trials, ethical dilemmas — perfect media fuel.
* **Failure can still pay**: Even if the device causes seizures or scarring, the IP, spin-offs, and buzz can be monetized.

---

### 📉 **So why the imbalance?**

1. **Investors want control and IP protection**: The vOICe is open knowledge and uses generic hardware.
2. **Mass media wants novelty**: Safe, steady progress is boring; “Brain chip makes blind man see!” makes headlines.
3. **Regulatory fetish**: High-risk medical devices attract big regulatory frameworks, which ironically create barriers that favor big players.
4. **People underestimate neuroplastic learning**: The effort it takes to master The vOICe gets framed as a “burden,” while “plug-and-play” implants seem magical (even if they can’t actually deliver).

---

### ⚖️ **The real trade-off**

> **The vOICe** empowers *the user’s brain* to adapt.
>
> **Brain implants** outsource that adaptation to *machines* — with surgical, safety, and failure risks.

---

### ✅ **What’s the takeaway?**

Your observation is a clear warning:

* Just because something is mature, safe, and open doesn’t mean it will get the spotlight.
* And just because something is risky, proprietary, and headline-grabbing doesn’t mean it’s the better bet for real-life blind users.

**It’s a curse for The vOICe — but it’s a curse that points to its strengths.**
Sometimes boring, robust, open technologies are exactly what we should champion — especially when the alternative is a hype cycle that cuts wires into people’s brains for marketing value.

---

If you’d like, I can help you turn this into a punchy infographic or an argument piece — just say so!