Neuroscience Experts Warn That Investors’ “Foolish Transhumanist Ideas” May Impede Neurotechnology Advancement

It has been an exciting year for neurotechnology, if one overlooks the interests of its investors. A small brain transplant yielded positive results in August, as researchers decoded the inner thoughts of a paralyzed patient. In October, a procedure restored vision to individuals who had lost their eyesight.

Experts believe the field could benefit from reduced involvement from its high-profile investors, such as Elon Musk and Sam Altman from OpenAI, who are preoccupied with notions of brain uploading and merging with AI.

“It significantly skews the conversation,” noted Marcello Ienca, a neuroethics professor at the Technical University of Munich. “There are ongoing worries about the narratives they propagate.”

Michael Hendricks, a professor of neurobiology at McGill University, remarked that “wealthy individuals fascinated by unrealistic transhumanist dreams” are clouding public perception of neurotechnology’s potential. “While Neuralink is genuinely developing technology for neuroscience, Musk’s comments on topics like telepathy create confusion.”

Over recent years, Silicon Valley companies have increased their investments in neurotechnology, with Altman co-founding Merge Labs, a competitor to Musk’s Neuralink, in August. Firms like Apple and Meta are both in the process of creating wearable devices that utilize neural data, such as a Meta wristband for brainwave monitoring and headphones by Apple.

Ienca asserts that most major tech companies in the U.S. have ongoing research into neurotechnology, such as Google’s Neural Mapping project and Meta’s acquisition of Ctrl Labs. “Neurotech is quickly entering the mainstream,” he observed.

While these technologies show promise for the immediate treatment of various neurological disorders, including ALS, Parkinson’s disease, and paralysis, concerns arise regarding whether investors genuinely aim to cure these ailments.

Musk has indicated that brain-computer interfaces like Neuralink might someday enable people to “upload” their consciousness. Altman remains reticent on the subject yet speaks of “memories” and the potential to “download them into a new or robotic body.” He mentioned on his blog that the anticipated “fusion” of humans and machines could occur through genetic engineering or “implanting electrodes into the brain.” Notably, in 2018, Altman invested in a “100% lethal” brain-uploading startup and paid $10,000 to join its waiting list.

To clarify, both Hendricks and Ienca state that technologies such as brain uploading are still far from being realized, if feasible at all in the foreseeable future. “Biological systems are not akin to computers,” Hendricks emphasized.

Some worry that these ambitions might impede tangible health advancements, potentially leading to regulations that stifle innovation due to fear.

Kristen Matthews, a mental privacy attorney at the Cooley law firm in the U.S., commented on this phenomenon: “Overhyping in science fiction can lead to regulations that obstruct technology advancements capable of genuinely aiding those in need.”

Neuroscientist Hervé Schneweis criticized this as “entirely unrealistic and obscuring genuine inquiries.” He chaired an expert committee that advised UNESCO on global standards for neurotechnology, which were adopted recently.

The current landscape of neurotechnology features three distinct categories. The first encompasses medical devices, such as a brain implant that decodes speech and Neuralink’s electronic chip that allows a man with a spinal cord injury to control a computer. The second includes consumer wearables like EEG earbuds and, more broadly, devices such as Apple’s VisionPro that track eye movements.

Lastly, there are the speculative projects like Nectome, a brain-uploading startup, and Kernel, which aims to connect the brain to a computer, alongside Neuralink’s latest initiatives. trademarking their concept of telepathy.

The first category promises the most significant breakthroughs, such as restoring vision and hearing as well as treating neurodegenerative and possibly psychiatric conditions. However, these medical devices are subject to stringent regulations and are not as advanced as reported by sensationalist media. A recent study criticized “misleading advertisements” surrounding brain-computer interfaces, asserting that the technology remains in its infancy at the outer edges of human neuroscience.

The second category, consumer wearables, presents more complex regulatory challenges. There have been numerous reports of brain-measuring devices breaching privacy, including widely discussed brainwave-monitoring helmets in China purportedly observing construction site laborers. It’s unclear whether these truly enhance productivity or pose legitimate monitoring risks.

“The robustness of the evidence supporting such systems is quite limited, with few studies being reproducible,” Ienca stated.

Hendricks added that devices like the EEG earphones sold by firms such as Emotiv are unlikely to function as effective surveillance tools due to the unreliable nature of the data, akin to the signals produced by a lie detector.

Nevertheless, Schneweis contends that these tools invoke genuine concerns: “If implemented in workplaces, they could monitor mental fatigue, and such data could lead to discrimination.”

On the other hand, speculative applications often rely on the assumption that healthy individuals willingly undergo invasive brain implants to facilitate communication with computers or telekinetic abilities.

This outcome seems improbable. If such advancements occur, they might trigger surveillance concerns. However, Hendricks expressed skepticism regarding the utility of such monitoring, suggesting it would offer no more valuable information than the detailed data tech giants already collect, including web browsing history and purchase information.

“Numerous methods exist to influence individuals using straightforward language and visual mediums,” Hendricks noted. “I doubt [that brain implants] will catch up any time soon.”

Regarding brain uploading, Hendricks believes the concept is rooted in a flawed understanding of technology, wherein individuals perceive the brain as hardware and consciousness as software that can be executed on it, a computer, or a robot.

“If I could truly upload myself to a computer and achieve immortality, I’d be inclined to end my life as long as someone assured me, ‘Oh, you’ll just reside in a metal box over there,'” he commented. “But I doubt many would take that risk. We instinctively recognize it as nonsensical.”