Terminal Cancer Patient Petitions for Neuralink-Based Mind Transfer Into Tesla Optimus
David Morales, a former UPS delivery driver and father of two, was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer in late 2024. Facing a grim prognosis, Morales submitted a written petition to Neuralink and Tesla Robotics, offering himself as a test subject for any experimental brain-machine interface project aimed at preserving human consciousness.
'I'm not a scientist. I'm not rich. I'm just a guy who's trying to stay here a little longer,' Morales wrote in a personal letter.
'If this body can't go on — maybe my mind can.'
Tesla's Optimus Gen-3 robot, initially designed for factory work and logistics, has recently drawn attention for its humanlike proportions and neural network integration. Equipped with advanced sensors, dynamic motor functions, and powered by Tesla's Dojo 2 AI platform, Optimus is now being explored as a possible vessel for cognitive transfer.
Sources close to the project say a modified Optimus unit is being tested in a secure lab under the codename Project ECHO, where simulated behavioral mapping of Morales has already begun.
At the center of the effort is the Neuralink N1 brain chip, capable of recording and stimulating high-resolution brain activity. Originally approved for use in patients with neurological disorders, the chip is now being pushed toward new frontiers — such as personality digitization and cognitive simulation.
Morales, who has undergone preliminary neural scanning sessions, is believed to be part of a study aimed at reconstructing emotional responses and memory patterns for AI training.
While full mind uploading remains scientifically out of reach, the research focuses on achieving partial consciousness replication within robotic systems.
Morales worked for nearly two decades in package logistics, rarely making headlines until now. His humble background has drawn widespread attention and sympathy — turning him into a symbolic figure for the average person facing mortality.
'You don't have to be a tech genius to want a second chance,' he said during a short video interview from his hospice room.
'I've lived a simple life. But maybe, with this, I can help build something bigger than myself.'
His request is currently under review by the Transhuman Futures Foundation (TFF) and a coalition of bioethics experts, AI researchers, and legal advisors. Tesla and Neuralink have not officially commented on the case, but insiders suggest internal conversations are ongoing.
Public response has been swift. A petition titled 'Give David a Second Life' has gathered over 500,000 signatures in three days. Across social platforms, the phrase 'Let the man live on' has begun trending.
However, not everyone is convinced. Critics cite risks such as: Misuse of personal identity in AI systems
The emotional toll of digital afterlife experiments
Ownership and legal rights over human-like robotic entities
Morales, who has stopped treatment to preserve neural clarity during data collection, posted the following update on social media:
'I may never walk again. But if I can think, love, or remember through a machine — maybe I'll still be me.'
The post has since gone viral, shared by major tech leaders and covered by international news outlets.
If approved, Morales may be the first person in history to undergo a partially assisted brain-to-robot simulation via Neuralink's emerging neural recording technology and Tesla's robotic framework.
The procedure — tentatively named 'The Transfer' — is expected to begin in late 2025 if technical and legal conditions are met.
Regardless of the outcome, David Morales's story has already redefined the public imagination about life, death, and what might lie between.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
20 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Tesla Reportedly Shuts Down AI Project Weeks After Musk Called It 'Spectacular'
Elon Musk has always thrived on bold claims and the contradictions that follow. On July 23, he joined Tesla's second-quarter earnings call, the standard ritual in which executives talk up their company's performance and future. Musk was in full visionary mode. That day, he painted a glowing picture of the future of Dojo, Tesla's ultra-ambitious, custom-built supercomputer designed to train the neural networks for Full Self-Driving (FSD) and Tesla's humanoid robot, Optimus. He called the next generation of Dojo 'really spectacular,' spoke of a new 'AI factory' with 'a lot of potential,' and laid out plans for Dojo 3. His tone and detail suggested Dojo was one of Tesla's most important projects, an active, thriving pillar of the company's identity as an AI leader. Less than a month later, Bloomberg dropped a bombshell: citing sources familiar with the matter, the outlet reported that Tesla had terminated its Dojo project entirely. Peter Bannon, the project's leader, was leaving the company, roughly 20 Dojo team members had recently departed for a new startup called DensityAI, and the remaining staff were being reassigned to other projects. The speed of the reversal is hard to overstate. In the space of weeks, Tesla appears to have gone from publicly championing Dojo's 'spectacular' potential to quietly dismantling the team. If Bloomberg's reporting is confirmed, it would mark the end of a program Musk once pitched as central to Tesla's technological edge. The Dojo project had already endured turbulence. It was widely seen as Tesla's attempt to reduce reliance on Nvidia's GPUs by building its own custom chips and training hardware. It was an expensive and technically risky strategy in a market dominated by chip giants. Losing talent to DensityAI, including key leaders, suggests mounting internal headwinds long before Bloomberg's scoop. On the July call, Musk fielded a question about whether his AI startup, xAI, might use Dojo. His answer was brimming with specifics and confidence. 'Dojo 2. We expect Dojo 2 to be operating at scale within the next year. At about 100 kh, 100 equivalents,' Musk said. He went on: 'And then AI Five, which is also really spectacular. I don't use those words lightly. We hope to have the AI factory in production towards the end of next year. But that has a lot of potential.' Musk even looked further ahead, discussing an 'intuitive' convergence between Dojo 3 and chips used in Tesla's cars and Optimus robots: 'Thinking about Dojo 3 and the AI six in the first chip, it seems intuitively that we want to try to find convergence there. It's basically the same chip that's used when you say two of them in a car or Optimus and maybe a larger number on a five-twelve count on a card or something like that, if you want high-bandwidth communication between chips. That seems sort of intuitively the way to go.' Critics quickly seized on the Bloomberg report to attack Musk's credibility, pointing out the contradiction between his recent hype and the reported shutdown. The Tesla community on X (formerly Twitter) lit up with debate. 'As somebody who's been invested in TSLA for over 10 years now, I'm well no stranger to his missed ambitious deadlines,' one user wrote. 'But I think his commentary on FSD, Optimus, and Dojo over the past couple of years goes beyond that. It's misleading, but he knows it needs to continue given the collapse of Tesla's car business.' Another replied: 'As somebody who's been invested in TSLA for over 10 years, taking a Bloomberg article about Tesla as entirely correct from day 1 is a bold choice. Could be true, but still bold. I suspect a specific part of Dojo has been canceled.' As somebody who's been invested in TSLA for over 10 years taking a Bloomberg article about Tesla as entirely correct on day 1 is a bold choice. Could be true, but still bold. I suspect a specific part of Dojo has been cancelled — Michael Phippen (@MichaelPhippen) August 7, 2025For longtime Musk watchers, this isn't new. In October 2015, Musk declared: 'Tesla will have a car that can do full autonomy in about three years.' Three months later, he repeated: 'We're going to end up with complete autonomy,' adding: 'And I think we will have complete autonomy in approximately two years.' Nearly a decade later, Tesla cars still aren't fully autonomous. The pattern—extreme optimism followed by abrupt course changes—is a hallmark of what's often called a 'reality distortion field,' a term first made famous in reference to Apple's Steve Jobs. Musk has wielded it to set aggressive deadlines for robotaxis, Boring Company tunnels, and humanoid robots, often without delivering on time or at scale. If Dojo has indeed been scrapped just weeks after being presented as a near-future reality, the fallout could be significant. Investors may question whether Musk knowingly misled them in July, or whether a sudden, serious issue forced him to abandon what he once described as a cornerstone of Tesla's AI strategy. Either way, if confirmed, the shutdown would deal another blow to Musk's credibility, and deepen the question of where his vision ends and reality begins. Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Tesla Diner Announces Major Menu Change After 'Unprecedented Demand'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Tesla's first retro-themed diner in Los Angeles has dramatically reduced its menu weeks after opening. Tesla Diner chef Eric Greenspan told Eater Los Angeles that the menu was "forever evolving," and that the team scaled it down to improve efficiency amid "unprecedented demand." Newsweek contacted Tesla for comment via email on Friday outside regular working hours. Why It Matters The Tesla Diner opened in July and was widely viewed as a bold experiment in brand extension, combining EV charging with nostalgia-driven dining. The project attracted intense public interest, with TikTok and Instagram users flooding the location for content and cuisine alike. It also attracted protests from critics of Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who has sparked numerous demonstrations over his association with the Trump administration. While the diner appears to be a hit with consumers, the menu cuts reflect the challenges of running a restaurant—even for tech giants such as Tesla. Behind the scenes, staff struggled with technical and supply chain issues, long preparation times, and the sheer volume of orders, The Guardian and InsideEVs reported. General view of Elon Musk's new Tesla Diner & Drive-In, which opened in July in Hollywood, California. General view of Elon Musk's new Tesla Diner & Drive-In, which opened in July in Hollywood, California. AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images/GC Images What To Know Musk first teased the idea of a Tesla Diner in 2018, and seven years later, a sleek, retro-futuristic two-story space designed by Franz von Holzhausen, Tesla's head of design, opened on Santa Monica Boulevard. Originally launched with a full-service menu, the diner has now reduced its selection to a simplified list of five sandwiches, two sides, two pie flavors, shakes and a few soft drinks, Eater reported. The restaurant removed the popular Epic Bacon—maple-glazed strips dusted with black pepper, according to Eater, that could be ordered as a stand-alone item. Regular bacon remains available as an add-on to burgers or grilled cheese sandwiches. Other dishes dropped from the Tesla Diner menu include the market salad, club sandwich, hash brown bites, biscuits with red gravy and chocolate chip cookies. The veggie burger option has also disappeared, Eater reported. Breakfast items such as waffles, once advertised as "all-day breakfast," are now available only in the mornings. Greenspan told Eater that soft serve ice cream should return later this week once the supplier caught up with the demand. He added that biscuits would return as a special "sooner rather than later." The diner's retro-inspired fountain drinks, including Shirley Temples and Creamsicles, have also been cut. The diner comes with Supercharger stations, two drive-in movie screens, and indoor and outdoor seating for up to 250 people. The meals are served in novelty Cybertruck-shaped boxes by roller-skating staff and Tesla's humanoid robots, Optimus. Customers can order in its sit-down space or via carhop service while charging their electric vehicles. According to Tesla, the restaurant is open 24/7. However, The New York Times reported, citing an employee, that those hours are reserved for Tesla drivers ordering from their cars through an app. The restaurant's operating hours for everyone else are 6 a.m. to midnight. What People Are Saying Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote on X on July 21: "If our retro-futuristic diner turns out well, which I think it will, Tesla will establish these in major cities around the world, as well as at Supercharger sites on long-distance routes." What Happens Next Tesla has not announced whether the diner's full menu will return. Greenspan told Eater that the restaurant would occasionally add special menu items.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Tesla says semi-autonomous driving is safer than human drivers for these 3 reasons. What to know
Is the future of driving semi-autonomous? Are cars that can (mostly) drive themselves actually safer than human drivers? Tesla is one of the automakers leading the charge to a semi-autonomous and fully-autonomous future for drivers. The clean energy and electric vehicle company isn't alone in this endeavor. Chevrolet (Super Cruise), Ford (BlueCruise), and Volkswagen (IQ Drive) are some of the many automotive powerhouses getting in on the semi-autonomous action. So, are cars that do most of the driving safer than actual human drivers? Here's what Tesla thinks and why the company may actually be on to something despite a clear bias. Why Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) could be safer than human drivers Can machine outdrive man? Tesla says that FSD Supervised, its semi-autonomous driving feature, "makes traffic much safer for you and other road users". According to Tesla, three key reasons why FSD (Supervised) is safer than the average driver are that the system doesn't drive under the influence, never gets tired, and doesn't experience road rage. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that "every day, about 34 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes". That works out to a person every 42 minutes dying in a completely preventable car crash. So, Tesla makes a valid point regarding FSD (Supervised) being safer than drivers because of drunk-driving. Drowsy-driving-related crashes resulted in 633 preventable deaths in 2023, according to NHTSA. Unlike a human driver, the FSD (Supervised) system does not get fatigued over time. As for Tesla's point about road rage, the software cannot have emotional reactions to driving situations like a human. The debate is much more nuanced than Tesla's simplified case for FSD (Supervised) vs. average human drivers, but the system does have some advantages. How does Tesla FSD (Supervised) work? Tesla's advanced driver-assistance technology uses an intelligent onboard computer, cameras, radar, and ultrasonic sensors to accelerate, decelerate, and follow navigation-provided routes. It requires the full attention of a driver but does not need physical stimulus to drive or steer. Semi-autonomous driving technology has been advancing for years through features like advanced cruise control. Tesla's FSD (Supervised) is one of the most advanced and commonly used semi-autonomous systems to date. The feature is subscription-based and costs $99.00 per month. It may seem like an expensive add-on, but the feature can completely transform a user's driving experience. Autonomous driving is the next frontier Semi-autonomous driving may seem futuristic, but automakers and companies are already investing millions of dollars into fully-autonomous vehicles and technology. Tesla Robotaxi, Waymo, and China's Apollo Go are ushering in the era of the self-driving car. These vehicles are capable of transporting passengers to their destinations without having a driver in the driver's seat. It's important to note that many robotaxi services still require an attendant to monitor the vehicle in early stages. Driver assistance and safety technology has come a long way in the past few decades. Features like backup camera are now standard on all new vehicles. Automatic emergency braking is much more common on new vehicles. In a few years, semi-autonomous driving features could be normalized to the point that they are standard and integrated into the way modern Americans drive.
