After 10 years, it is not particularly good to have to caveat that with "once it passes the FDA, assuming it's real".

The main problem isn't even the tech, though the tech isn't as good as it seems either.

Their main advance hasn't been the BCI: other teams also do this, main limiting factor is product lifetime rather than electrode count (though yes their count is higher).

The surgical robot is a much more interesting thing than the BCI. But even with the robot, "interesting" rather than "amazing" because (1) what else can that robot do? (2) what does it cost to use? (3) was it reliable enough for humans, or the reason for all the animal welfare issues? (4) some other BCI teams working on delivery via blood vessel and less invasive is better.

Main thing though for any sucessful medical tech is cost. Even with FDA (or non-US equivalents, somehow I don't even know the name of my local equivalent), medical interventions are famously expensive enough in the US to bankrupt and insurance in the US is famously reluctant to pay the full costs.

And up a level, the problem with Neuralink is their output suggests a lack of care to detail, of emphasis on speed over quality, and of having inherited Musk's personal attitude problem when faced with criticism.