In 2018, DARPA (the US' military "advanced research" department) published a tender for non-invasive brain stimulation devices to augment military personnel. The bid was won the year after by a research team at Carnegie Mellon University that received $19.48 million to develop a wearable brain stimulation device. The news is in line with DARPA's more longstanding interest in developing "neurotechnology", which can be broadly defined as cyberphysical systems to interact with the human nervous system. The fact this bid focused on non-invasive (i.e., non-surgical) devices as opposed to invasive neurotechnology (i.e., electrode implants) is interesting. It could say something about DARPA's potential ethical concerns that may have pushed investments for at most "minutely invasive" devices, but mostly non-invasive ones. The idea being that non-invasive devices can easily be taken off, so users' brains cannot be stimulated when they are not on a mission.
Now, enter Elon Musk's Neuralink. Since its establishment in 2016, individual success stories of Neuralink's invasive brain-computer interface slowly started appearing. For instance, one quadriplegic patient is now able to play various video games by controlling a computer cursor through the electrodes implanted in his brain. Key to Neuralink's research and development are people with neurological conditions who agree to be their guinea pigs and undergo brain implant surgery. Giving such patients a sense of autonomy and newfound abilties can be considerd a major medical breakthrough (some other examples here and here). But Musk's bigger vision for brain-computer interfaces extends far beyond helping the disabled. Especially with his newfound political ties, the US government is sure to serve Elon's business interests. It would be a small next step for Neuralink to collaborate with DARPA to translate their clinical test results to start augmenting non-clinical individuals - if they are not doing so already.
Given the rising geopolitical tensions, it should come as no surprise that investors have been injecting more capital into military tech companies in the past few years, in both the US and EU. Whether you err on the side of pacifism or not, this trend will foster a military tech boom and could in fact advance what Musk called a "symbiosis with AI".
If I were to make a prediction for what will happen in the next 30-50 years, I would say two things. One, political influence will have completely shifted from oligarchs to tech bros like Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey. As they built their raison d'etre around deep tech ventures, they have a vested interest in pushing for widespread tech adoption - whether we are talking about brain implants, mixed reality or even a funky cocktail thereof. Second, the current military interests in technologies like brain-computer interfaces will likely revolutionise how humans will live in the future. Historically, military research has brought forth technologies such as GPS and the internet that helped catapult humanity into the modern era. Why would it be different this time around?
As my job is to predict future crime from emerging technologies and finding countermeasures, I am finding more and more that the questions do not revolve around whether certain fantasies like communicating telepathically through brain implants can become reality. The deeper, perhaps more important questions are whether certain technological innovations should be pursued. At present, it seems inevitable that without a global moratorium on certain endeavours, some form of artificial intelligence will be built into everything - including our bodies. Indeed, we may become the AI.
Comments