Elon Musk’s Plan to Put a Chip in Your Brain

Elon Musk wants to put a chip in your brain, and he’s just taken a major step towards his goal. His neurotechnology company, Neuralink, has developed a brain-computer interface (BCI) that can be surgically implanted into the surface of the brain and connected to external electronics and robotic devices.

It sounds like science fiction, but it’s not. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Neuralink to begin trials to implant its brain chips into humans.

That decision has opened a complex discussion about the many pros and cons of BCI technology. On one hand, Neuralink could prove to be our most significant medical breakthrough to date. On the other, it opens a Pandora's box packed with serious ethical concerns.

THE GOOD…

There is enormous potential upside to BCI technologies like Neuralink. Many BCIs are being developed as possible new treatment options for a range of neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, and depression.

Musk himself has said Neuralink could be used to restore vision for the blind and full body functionality for people with severed spinal cords. The Neuralink website is calling for people who suffer with quadriplegia, paraplegia, vision loss, hearing loss, or the inability to speak to join its patient registry.

And in the exciting realm of neural prosthetics, BCIs like Neuralink look likely to accelerate the development of mind-controlled robotic limbs and exoskeletons that could restore near-normal function for people who have lost limbs or are experiencing mobility challenges.

However, Musk’s goals for Neuralink extend beyond supporting human health. He has said he founded the company in response to what he sees as the existential threat of artificial intelligence (AI). He believes Neuralink will help humans to compete with sentient AI, although what that competition actually looks like remains unclear.

THE BAD…

These breakthroughs come with significant concerns. Neuralink has been investigated by the US Department of Agriculture over allegations of animal abuse, and came under the attention of the US Department of Transportation over claims the company mishandled bio-hazardous materials.

The FDA also had some concerns about the company. The regulatory body rejected Neuralink’s initial request to go into clinical trials, citing “dozens of deficiencies” in its application. While it may be fair to assume these deficiencies have now been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction, it is not clear what they were or how they have been solved.

Media outlets have also raised questions about the safety of the implanted device with concerns about the potential overheating of its lithium battery, fears it could migrate to other parts of the brain, and whether it can be safely removed if it malfunctions or causes an immune response in the patient.

Ethical concerns surrounding implanting devices in the brain – particularly regarding privacy, consent, and potential misuse – add complexity to the issue. Apprehensions around the collection and protection of personal data, as well as the potential for unauthorised access or control over individuals' thoughts and actions, will need to be addressed.

…AND THE UGLY

That’s really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ethical questions around BCIs. Musk reportedly sees Neuralink as more than a medical device. He says it could one day be used as “a backup drive for your non-physical being, your digital soul.”

This takes on particular concern in the current climate of data mishandling and insecurity. In a future where BCIs like Neuralink can quite literally read our minds – and digitise and store our innermost thoughts – data privacy would take on even more importance.

Neuralink also holds the promise of augmenting human capabilities by establishing a direct connection between the human brain and external devices. While this could certainly be a welcome development in the field of neural prosthetics, it could hold serious implications when applied to military and commercial applications.

There are so many questions here. What are the consequences of developing fleets of mind-controlled devices? Will BCI access to our brain data be effectively regulated and safeguarded? Could BCIs be used to capture our “digital souls” for later download into our robotic facsimile?

Whether Neuralink could prove to be a miracle cure for a range of debilitating disorders, or expose our innermost thoughts to corporate and criminal skullduggery – or both – remains to be seen. One thing is for certain, though. BCIs like Neuralink will continue to blur the line between human and machine, for better or worse.

Read more at THE MALCONTENT.