Human trials have begun! Brain-computer interface technology should be carefully promoted

Text | Liu Yongmou

On January 30, on social media X, Musk announced that his company Neuralink had completed the first human transplant of a brain-computer interface (BCI) device, which once again aroused widespread attention to brain-computer interface technology. The last time Neuralink sparked a global heated discussion was on August 29, 2020, when he used Piggy to show the company's latest brain-computer interface device, and it was also Max's "platform", which was broadcast live with 3 Piglets.

From "pig body transplantation" to "human transplantation", Neuralink has spent less than 4 years, and the progress has been "rapid", which has stimulated the public's imagination of various "magical" brain-computer interfaces.

Over the past 20 years, the development of high-tech technologies, especially information and communication technology (ICT), artificial intelligence (AI) and biotechnology, has become more and more closely integrated with media hype.

According to the logic of the technology-business "double helix", the new progress of technology itself is important, but it is more important to attract the "eyeballs" of the public, and "attention" is equal to a steady stream of investment. As a result, some of today's tech companies, such as OpenAI, Neuralink, etc., place great emphasis on attracting traffic through PR campaigns. They engage in new technology "hype" with at least two salient features:

First, the business owner personally endorses the company's products and plays the role of "tech superhero". In the hearts of many people, Musk is no longer the boss, but the "Iron Man" himself in the Marvel movies. With the blessing of "heroes", tech companies are shrouded in a kind of idealistic "mystery", as if their fundamental goal is not to make a profit, but to create a better world with technology regardless of the cost.

Second, do what they like, create hot topics, and let the public participate in them, and they can't stop it. For example, since the concept of AI was proposed in the fifties and sixties of the 20th century, the "AI awakening" has been discussed in every wave of AI boom, which has become an important topic in AI culture and even pop culture. What will happen when AI awakens, what will happen when super AI arrives, does super AI have morals, desires, goals, and will it rule over human beings...... Similar questions are obviously fanciful, and even completely unspecified, but they do have a good push effect. In this regard, Rothzak pointed out in the 90s of the 20th century: "The reason for the knee-jerk self-boasting of artificial intelligence research is very simple: a lot of money is poured into this research. ”

In the process of Neualink's development of brain-computer interface technology, Musk has always claimed that helping paralyzed patients is not his ultimate goal, and the long-term goal is to "achieve symbiosis with AI", that is, to use brain-computer interface technology to integrate humans and AI. He believes that only in this way can humans not be left behind by AI. Obviously, this is also a rhetoric related to the "AI awakening".

From the perspective of communication studies, the new technological "propaganda" of Western multinationals is very successful today. After Musk announced the successful transplantation of the first brain-computer interface device, the stock prices of relevant listed companies rose sharply.

However, "brain-computer interface propaganda" and "AI propaganda" may "divert" the public's attention, discussing too many questions such as "will super AI rule Homo sapiens" and "whether robots should be moral", ignoring the real, valuable risks and ethical issues related to new technologies, and some of them are somewhat misguided, and even entertaining serious issues. In addition, excessive hype leads to over-imagination, which sometimes brings unexpected resistance to the development of new technologies.

In terms of technical route, many people in the industry have objections to Neuralink's choice of strong intrusion access methods. Brain-computer interface technology has been developed for at least forty or fifty years, and many access methods have been explored. The non-invasive method does not require craniotomy, does not harm the human body, and is much less risky. Even invasive access can be strong or weak, and Neuralink opted for a very damaging skull drill implant.

Why did Neuralink choose this way? Some, such as Sigal Samuel, believe that the reason is that the ambition is too great, and this is dangerous. Musk has said many times that brain-computer interface technology is not only a medical device for treating paralysis, but a channel for AI to connect with the human body, and its "bandwidth", that is, the speed of signal exchange, is the most important. Therefore, Neuralink chooses a strong intrusive access method, because the intrusive interface is closer to the brain and the signal exchange speed is faster.

Obviously, the highly invasive brain-computer interface has damage to the human brain, and there are greater risks and ethical risks. For example, overly nuanced interpretation of brain signals runs the risk of violating and misusing personal privacy. For example, if signals transmitted to the brain are maliciously intercepted and altered, emotions may be manipulated, which is what neuroethicists call "brain robbery."

In the trade-off between accelerating technological development and preventing technological risks, Musk chooses the former and ignores the latter. This reflects Musk's belief in Effective Accelerationism (E/ACC), which he also openly professes to behold.

The popular e/acc trend among Silicon Valley tech tycoons advocates doing everything possible to promote technological acceleration, and any attempt to control the power of technology will hinder the progress of truth and must be abolished; human well-being should not be a reason to control the development of AI, and human beings must actively adapt to technological development, even if robots and cyborgs eventually replace humans to dominate the earth. Obviously, this has fanatical techno-utopian overtones.

Technology is a double-edged sword, which can benefit society but also has many negative effects. In the past 20 years, many great thinkers have focused on the precipice of civilization, that is, the improper use of new technologies, such as nuclear war, AI war, climate change and environmental destruction, may lead to the extinction of human civilization or suffer irreparable damage. The reckless acceleration of technological development could lead human society to a point of no avail.

The development of new technologies must be aimed at improving the well-being of mankind. The traditional notion that "there is no forbidden area for scientific research" has become obsolete in the 21st century. Nowadays, many cutting-edge technologies have a great impact on society, and once the negative impact is formed, it is difficult to recover. Brain-computer interface technology belongs to this type of technology, which must be promoted prudently to prevent and avoid risks as much as possible. A certain development direction, route and strategy, if the risks are enormous, and there is no proper prevention and response plan, should be suspended, stopped, or even completely banned. To this end, the state should strengthen the supervision of the development of brain-computer interface technology, and the society should strengthen the supervision and attention to its scientific and technological risks, and guide the public to participate in the development of brain-computer interface technology, especially the discussion of related scientific and technological ethics issues, in a democratic way.

In short, the development of high-tech technologies such as brain-computer interface technology cannot be controlled by some unscrupulous "technology madmen" and radical technology companies, but should embark on the right path of science and technology for good under the attention of all parties.

(The author is a researcher at the National Institute of Development and Strategy, Renmin University, Chinese)