Why researchers warn of the consequences of brain-computer interfaces such as Neuralink
Analyzing brain waves could be a broader market breakthrough. Time to deal with the social and individual consequences.
When it comes to interfaces between the human brain and computers, most of us initially think of brain implants, plug-in connections into the brain, so to speak. Numerous successful experiments have shown that electrodes placed in the brain make it possible, for example, to read out pain or spoken language. Elon Musk’s startup Neuralink is increasing the number of data channels for such implants and is working on minimally invasive surgical methods.
Given these science fiction-sounding reports, it is easy to overlook the fact that brain waves can also be measured without surgically invading the brain. In any case, the term brain-computer interface has long been understood to mean an EEG cap that is connected to a computer. These non-invasive systems, which can be worn like a hood, a cap or a headband, are therefore usually referred to as eBCI in order to differentiate them from brain implants.
A lot has happened in the eBCI area in recent years. The construction of systems made of an EEG cap and computer, with which simple computer games can be controlled by the mind, are no longer rocket technology, but rather study projects for students in relevant fields. There are now wheelchairs that can be controlled by paralyzed people using this technology, and it is conceivable that they could be built into various vehicles. For gamers, there were already several game controllers that allow games to be played by the power of thought. What all these applications have in common are the machine learning algorithms that users or both must first train before they can use a gadget.
Contents
Brain interfaces before the market
The technology has the potential to be on the verge of a broader market breakthrough. So it’s time to deal with the social consequences of such systems. They have a research team at Emperial College, London examined in a study, which was published in the journal APL Bionengineering. In principle, the researchers see technology as an unprecedented scientific achievement, but identify a number of problem areas in which there are risks.
The researchers see new data protection problems approaching us in everyday use, for example when gaming or controlling PCs and similar devices. It is already possible today to analyze mouse movement patterns, eye movements, facial expressions and similar behavioral data and to correlate them more or less accurately with emotional states. If data from brain waves are also available for analysis, the corresponding data protection problems could worsen.
However, the important thing here is to understand that this is not mind reading. At the moment there is no technology, neither as an implant nor non-invasive, that can really decipher human thoughts in their complexity consisting of words, images, sounds, smells, other sensory impressions as well as emotions and abstract ideas. Analyzing brain waves while a person is imagining they are speaking and translating that into text is different from mind reading. Nevertheless, with big data approaches it is conceivable to correlate patterns in brain waves with certain emotional states and to use this technology to manipulate people.
It seems a bit daring that the researchers classify eBCI as bidirectional, because the systems can give feedback in different ways based on the measured brain waves. Possible return channels range from light electrical stimulation through vibration to other sensory impressions. This may offer some manipulation potential, but it is not comparable with the bidirectional communication of implants, whose electrodes placed in the brain not only receive signals from neurons, but can also specifically stimulate these neurons electrically.
Nevertheless, the experience of being able to manipulate objects or computer games with the power of thought could be addictive. In some research projects it was observed that the test persons no longer wanted to take the eBCI after the end of the experiments. Whether this is potentially pathological addictive behavior or simply having fun with the technology or possibly a newly gained feeling of freedom for test persons with disabilities would have to be reconstructed in detail.
Finally, the researchers identified the issue of social justice as a possible problem area. Should eBCI ever increase intellectual performance, the question of who can afford such devices could lead to social division. As a consequence, the researchers are calling for appropriate legislation that ensures that eBCI meet the defining security standards and that their use is restricted to ethically justifiable areas.
It is better to have such a debate sooner rather than later. This also includes developing an understanding of what eBCI can and cannot do in the foreseeable future. All too often, especially under the heading of transhumanism, ideas haunt the media that belong more to the realm of science fiction and have little to do with technical reality. For such a debate it is important to be clear to ourselves whether we find it rather creepy that companies will soon also read our brainwaves or that we find the thought of interacting with computers and the Internet via thought power exciting.
