The merging of the human mind with machines and artificial intelligence (AI) is advancing through neurotechnologies like brain-computer interfaces (BCI). These BCIs record brain activity and can also alter it. Initially developed for medical rehabilitation, there is now a push for consumer devices. Companies like Elon Musk’s Neuralink aim to expand human potential and speed up thinking to keep pace with AI.
Neuralink’s latest brain implant is a chip with numerous fine wires, implanted using a small robotic device inspired by a sewing machine. This device inserts about 1,000 electrodes into the brain in half an hour. Despite sounding simple, it remains a complex procedure, requiring a 3D model and mapping of blood vessels, which can be intimidating.
The second operation to implant a Neuralink device in a human reportedly went well in summer 2024. However, the US regulatory body has denied Musk’s request to test brain chips on healthy individuals. Despite this, Musk has the resources and determination to pursue his plans.
BCIs raise philosophical, ethical, and legal questions. They affect how humans connect with their environment. If emotions are automatically regulated by BCIs, how does that change a person’s perception of the world? BCIs become part of the individual, similar to limbs or organs, and the software integrated with them becomes inseparable from the person, creating a close relationship with AI.
Legally, there are implications. Currently, no one can own another’s body parts. Once implanted, manufacturers lose ownership of BCIs, and individuals should have the right to modify the software. This suggests that copyright laws may need to change, but there is no current legal framework for this.
Brain implants could intensify issues like unhealthy user behavior and mental impacts, including manipulation through brain stimulation. Neurological responses to stimuli can be measured, leading to constant personalized neuromarketing, especially in gaming environments. This understanding can be used to influence purchasing decisions.
This raises privacy and security concerns, with potential side-channel attacks on the brain already explored in studies. The obsolescence of technology embedded in the body, unsupported by manufacturers over time, is another issue.
These challenges have sparked a debate on “new human rights.” California and Colorado have moved to legally protect brain data, and Chile has amended its constitution for this purpose. The Neurorights Initiative aims to safeguard these rights, though some argue it undermines existing protections.
Focusing on freedom of thought, as outlined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 9 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, may be more effective. This right protects not only freedom of expression but also consciousness from ideological influence. It is one of the strongest human rights, not subject to balancing against others.
The UN’s UNESCO has begun drafting global recommendations on the ethics of neurotechnology, outlining shared global rules. However, the consumer sector is not yet covered. Meanwhile, China and the USA compete to utilize BCI data for AI training. To prevent dystopian outcomes, risks must be managed with clear legal and technical regulations, such as open-source requirements.