In a press conference containing socially-distanced and bewildered engineers, Elon Musk delivered the latest advancements in brain-machine interfaces while extrapolating the possibilities of this nascent technology for human and robot symbiosis. Musk demonstrated how his start-up company, Neuralink, has the potential to solve a wide gamut of brain disabilities from blindness to paraplegia, by recording and displaying the brain signals of test-pig one of three: Gertrude. The current application of Neuralink seems to be a far cry from the wild assertions of its future capabilities. Yet, history has documented several technological breakthroughs that have redefined our understanding of what is possible and proven how quickly these advancements can be made; from Alan Turing’s Robinson machine to the dominating presence of the Internet, the quick movement of technology suggests that the future applications of Neuralink asserted by Musk must be considered. If brain-machine technology bears the chance of reaching AI and human symbiosis, the regulation and national security threats associated with this technology must be re-evaluated sooner than expected.
Technology, at its core, pushes no singular objective but simply reflects the motivations of those who are able to utilize it; when we see technological advancements wreak havoc on vulnerable populations and, just as frequently, shed light on social injustices, the varying results are a consequence of the existence of a diverse set of global actors. With the rise of revisionist powers that challenge the supremacy of the Liberal International Order, and when considering some of the most extraordinary promises of brain-machine interface tech like memory recording, telepathy, and evolution towards AI and human symbiosis, it is imperative to postulate how different state actors are likely to utilize these features to advance conflicting agendas. To convey this divide, imagine the different applications of this emerging technology, which stands the chance of bringing humans and AI into closer alignment with each other, in different political systems.
As the name suggests, brain-machine interfaces such as Neuralink are developed with the intention to join the human brain with a robotic one — an advancement that will allow the human brain to function more like a computer. With this technology, the data produced through our synapses firing could be collected, stored, and uploaded to an external hard-drive for retrieval. Humans may discover ways to download and process new information at rates that would be virtually incomprehensible to humans who live without a chip. However, unlike a computer, human intentions will still exist, and in states existing under authoritarian rule, technology like this could have severe ramifications on individual liberties and current social structures. Consider, for example, how the Chinese government has used the internet and facial recognition technology to limit citizens’ access to free speech and control their actions. To regulate and monitor internet traffic, the Chinese government has set up state agencies dedicated to censoring information that diverts from their established political agenda. Since the advent of the internet in China, there has been contentious debate on how to regulate the internet to suppress potential political uprisings, and with the Great Firewall initiative and its subsequent extension, Great Cannon, the Chinese government has absolute censorship control over their media and can edit what remains on the internet at a moments notice. The terrifying concept of “sovereign-internet” extends to Russia and North Korea, and it exposes a worrying trend within authoritarian regimes where technology is used as a weapon for oppression rather than a tool for freedom. In the near future, it seems likely that brain-machine interfaces may be used by these authoritarian governments to tighten their surveillance of political dissent by providing them with a mechanism for tracking it.
A general distinction between authoritarian regimes and democracies is the distribution of political power in each; a centralized authority figure is characteristic of the former while the latter is created on the principle of rule by the majority. Brain-machine interfaces can easily be used to the advantage of authoritarian governments to push back more effectively against political upheaval and strengthen their hold on power. Compared to the application of facial-recognition technology in China, where surveillance cameras are heavily used to track citizens and deter opposition, brain-machine interfaces offer a more direct approach to achieve the same agenda of control and one that is not reliant on external factors like good weather. If the production and distribution of these technologies are also controlled by the central authority, it will only further the oppressive agendas of these governments and remove the agency of the people to revolt. A dystopian future may arise in the worst-case scenario of brain-machine interfaces where citizens’ beliefs are molded to mirror the political agendas of individual states and a void is created to replace creative thought and individuality.
In modern-day democracies, ideals of personal freedom and individuality are used to convey the message of equality, and although more progressive than authoritarian governments, the current institutions of democratic nations are no better equipped to deal with implementing brain-machine interface technologies. As the complete antithesis to the central-power government structure, democracies contain an overflow of distinct moral values and political alignments which, while a conducive environment for constant growth and critical thinking, the sheer volume of opinions and information in democracies contributes to inefficiencies in political change and the rise of interest groups. This notion is evident in countries with “first-past-the-post” electoral systems that elect representatives who receive the most number of votes rather than the majority of votes and encourage pandering to small interest groups. In doing so, the voices of the few are given a larger platform than the needs of the majority and greater political polarization develops. The advent of brain-machine interfaces will only worsen this polarization as social cleavages are exposed between groups who are firm supporters versus those who are adamantly opposed to its implementation.
The greatest achievement of the internet is its equalizing effect on access to knowledge and new information. However, as the number of individual participants continues to grow and barriers to entry are lowered, more misinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories are bound to spread rapidly. Even more concerning is how the internet can be used as a medium for states to influence the results of other democratic elections, a feat that was achieved by Russia during the U.S 2016 presidential election. If current cybersecurity attacks are difficult to identify and dismantle, the rise of brain-machine interfaces will only exacerbate the issue. The accelerated rate at which data will be created and consumed will have terrible real-world consequences as people are more likely to view and retain misinformation.
In perhaps the only similarity to authoritarian governments, democratic states also engage in data collection on their citizens. However, the purpose of this monitoring is quite distinct in countries like the United States which use it to fight against terrorism rather than suppress political dissidence. However, this extension of power raises questions on infringement on privacy and civil liberties which led to an intense backlash against the U.S. government when Edward Snowden exposed the NSA for recording and storing large amounts of data on American citizens. Beyond the morally questionable nature of this behavior, the centralized storage of this data could pose great national security risks if any information leak occurred. Liberal democracies are therefore equally unprepared for the consequences of brain-machine interface technologies, and there is a desperate need for international cooperation to deter the threats of it.
As humans become more reliant on technology and more interconnected with each other, it is likely that today’s technological woes will only be amplified by tomorrow’s revolutionary discoveries. This thought experiment hopes to demonstrate that all political systems — authoritarian or democratic — will not be able to implement technologies like Neuralink without some major breakdown along the chain of command. It is imperative that global actors come together to set agreed-upon norms, aid in the creation of an international organization with the goal of monitoring R&D in individual states and weeding out harmful actors, or simply expand existing platforms. Although the rise of nationalism across the world has had negative effects on international cooperation and openness, the existence of successful regulation on cyberspace in international law is a prime example of how global unity can uphold equitable applications of emerging technologies. Additionally, it is absolutely necessary that this conversation extends beyond state actors to private firms, the scientific community, and most importantly to average citizens, whose lives will be affected the most without proper regulation. Elon Musk’s demonstration with Neuralink solidified the notion that brain-machine interfaces are an inevitable advancement that will uncover the flaws of today’s technological governance and generate new threats as well as opportunities. The only thing left uncertain is whether or not global leaders will have the foresight and international framework to implement it correctly.