So earlier this year, Elon Musk's other company Neuralink successfully installed a brain implant in the brain of a 29-year-old quadriplegic man named Noland Arbaugh. The story gained a lot of attention last week when Neuralink announced that some of the implants had failed. But I think this news cycle and the hyperbole that goes with it misses the big picture.
Let me explain. First of all, this Neuralink technology is really amazing. This allowed Arbaugh to play chess in his mind, which he demonstrated in a demonstration. But the potential to exceed this is really fast. Although this technology is still in its infancy, there are signs that it has the potential to erase painful memories, restore lost bodily functions, and allow us to communicate with each other telepathically.
Second, this brain implant neurotechnology is part of a broader neurotechnology. The second category is not implanted in the body, but placed on or near the body to receive the brain's electrical signals. These devices, developed by the likes of Meta and Apple, are similar to health tracking devices, except they allow access to our thoughts.
The third point is that this technology is an example of AI-adjacent technologies being accelerated by recent AI advances. One of the challenges for neurotechnology has been how to make sense of all this data coming from our brains. This is where AI really becomes powerful. We now have more and more power to give meaning to these data from our own hearts. As a result, technology and the companies that develop it will have access to the most private data we have: data about what we're thinking. Of course, a more important point arises here. That means we are on the verge of gaining access to brain data, and the potential for misuse and exploitation of this is indeed enormous. And it's already happening.
Governments are already trying to read the minds of their citizens using neurotechnology, and companies are grappling with ways to advertise to potential customers in their dreams. And finally, I think this shows very clearly that we need to think about regulation very quickly. Nita Farahany, who recently wrote a book about the future of neurotechnology, “The Battle for the Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology,'' says we only have a year to understand the governance of this technology. thinking about. One year is moving at such a fast pace. In the debate surrounding AI, with so many people discussing the existential risks of AI, some attention may need to be paid to technologies adjacent to and powered by AI. Perhaps because those technologies present far more pressing challenges.
Taylor Owen. Thank you for watching.
