Posthumanity and the Future of Brain-Computer Interface Startups
By: Avantika Mehra
Tags: Tech, Artificial Intelligence, Neuroscience, AI, Technology

Image from Javier Arrés via Giphy

Companies have begun declaring human enhancement as the solution to the existential threat posed by artificial intelligence, proclaiming that the race between Man and Machine is well underway, and we have not lost just yet. Kernel and Neuralink are two amongst several brain-computer interface (BCI) startups that are working to hack the human brain, so that humans can be endowed with superior physical, cognitive, and emotional ability, with the eventual goal of allowing humans to coevolve with AI.

The idea of enhancement is not new: for years, athletes have used physical enhancers to remain competitive, students have turned to cognitive enhancers to boost academic performance, and people have resorted to personality enhancers to elevate mood. We have witnessed multiple instances of specific types of enhancers (eg: Adderall) being used to improve function in a specific domain (eg: cognitive functioning).

But what happens when a human undergoes a general enhancement — that is, a global upgrade of physical performance, cognitive functioning, and emotional intelligence, all at once? This piece explores the implications of enabling posthuman modes of being through extreme human enhancement in multiple domains.

Posthuman — a being who has either a healthspan, cognition, or emotional capacity in a degree that is unachievable by humans without resorting to technology

Posthuman Modes of Being

When human enhancement is applied in its most extreme form, the result is posthuman modes of being. In his essay Why I Want to be a Posthuman, acclaimed AI researcher Nick Bostrom argues that becoming posthuman is not only possible, but also that it could be worthwhile for humans to convert to a posthuman mode of being.

Bostrom delineates the necessary conditions for a being to be considered posthuman — that is, a being who has either a healthspan, cognition, or emotional capacity in a degree that is unachievable by humans without resorting to new technology.

Creating Posthumans

While Bostrom provides an account for the potential usefulness and value of a new mode of existence, he chooses not to address how posthuman modes of being might empirically be achieved. Delving into how practical implementation could occur, it seems that global human enhancement could be achieved through some combination of the following techniques:

Gene-editing , or using germline genetic modification for enhancement. This method involves using techniques, like CRISPR, to modify DNA in humans — the changes made in the genome are subsequently passed on to future generations, with the potential to create ‘designer babies’.

, or using germline genetic modification for enhancement. This method involves using techniques, like CRISPR, to modify DNA in humans — the changes made in the genome are subsequently passed on to future generations, with the potential to create ‘designer babies’. Implanting a brain-chip. This involves physically implanting a wireless device into the brain, that contains thin micro-electrodes that communicate with neurons. The device will receive electrical signals from neurons and transmit the information to a computer, where an algorithm will translate the electrical signals into digital code.

The ‘brain code’ can be analysed for patterns, and edited, before it is translated back into electrical signals and passed onto neurons, effectively allowing a customised computer program to read and alter brain signals, ultimately equipping scientists with the capability to control specific parts of cognitive function, like memory, perception, and emotion.

Currently, BCI startups are conducting research to see if a similar methodology can be used to enhance memories. In the future, it is possible that after collecting sufficient data and ‘mapping’ out the brain, enhancement providers could create bundles of different available modules, so that a user could download and install a desired cognitive or motor function from the cloud, Matrix-style.

Problems with Posthumanity

At first glance, the opportunities that this new paradigm of existence could unlock may appear, to the Digital Utopians, thrilling and opportunistic: it would enable humans to push themselves to new physical extremes, quickly acquire new skills, and accomplish complex cognitive tasks.

There are, however, several issues associated with the practical implementation of each of these techniques. Foremost is the issue of accessibility: if private companies begin offering enhancement services, financial and geographic barriers could result in unequal access, unless services are subsidized and distributed by the government. At its most extreme, Enhancement as a Service (EaaS) could create classes or tiers of individuals defined by their quality of enhancement or level of upgrade.

Genome-editing, whether used independently, or in conjunction with a brain-chip, has its own set of ethical considerations, including current safety concerns with the accuracy of gene-editing, the fact that it is impossible to obtain future consent from unborn generations who will be affected by germline modification (prospective ‘designer-babies’), and moral and religious objections to conducting research on human embryos.

Next, is the issue of privacy, which is relevant for the brain-chip technique. If brain signals are transmitted across networks and stored on servers owned by tech companies, and enhancement is universally adopted, then a set of private corporations would have access to volumes of neural data collected over time — that is, they would have access to millions of terabytes of thoughts.

It seems reasonable to assume that if technology has reached this stage, consumer protection and data privacy legislation would be enacted to ensure that private ‘thought data’ would be heavily encrypted, preventing companies from monetising user data. Legislators would have to discuss the extent to which it ethical to provide targeted advertising to consumers based aggregated ‘thought’ data; if neural patterns of violent or criminal thoughts can be identified, lawmakers would have to consider the situations under which it is permissible for authorities to use neural signals to implicate potential criminals.

Then there is the risk of private companies choosing to fund priorities that are directly aligned with profit-making goals, and disconnected from outcomes that are most likely to maximise social benefit. When academics fund science through research-grants, the expected outcome is the discovery of a scientific truth with a socially desirable application; when technologists fund science through investment capital, the expected return is profit. It is conceivable that, as BCI-startups grow to rival tech giants, they will elicit regulation, so that projects remain aligned with socially-desirable outcomes.

Is Posthumanity desirable?

Aside from the myriad society-level problems that could arise as a result of enhancement techniques, it is worth asking the question: are posthuman modes of being actually desirable?

Bostrom says yes — he believes that posthuman modes of being could be good for humanity for two reasons. First, it would enable us to fulfill our current desires. As humans, we already desire long lives and improved cognitive functioning — this is reflected in our social spending priorities: of its total GDP, the US spends on average 17.5% on healthcare and 5% on education. It follows then, that humans are likely to highly value an extended capacity to remain healthy and active (a posthuman healthspan), and general intellectual capacities (a posthuman cognition).

But desire and perceived value may not be sufficient criteria by which we can deem posthumanity worthwhile. To this, Bostrom says that being posthuman can widen the range for possible life courses that a being can take, thus unlocking new avenues of existence for humans.

Consider S(h) the ‘space’ of possible modes that can be instantiated (lived out) by someone with current human capacities; consider S(p) the space of possible modes that can be instantiated by someone with posthuman capacities. If S(p) > S(h), that is, the space of possible modes that can be instantiated by a posthuman is greater than the space of possible modes that can be instantiated by a human (this seems to be the case intuitively), then a posthuman will have a larger range of possible life courses that could be lived out during their lifespan. From them, a greater frequency and diversity of thoughts could arise, and more mental states and emotions could be experienced. Their experience of being conscious would be subjectively different from ours: arguably, more enriched.

Bostrom makes a compelling case for why posthumanity could be desirable: longer and more enriched lives, and endless opportunity for the potential trajectories a life could take. But, it would be remiss to overlook the drawbacks that could accompany such an upgraded lifestyle.

In a world where enhancement is universal, societal standards and expectations would be elevated, which may translate into new metrics of evaluation across various institutions. Job and college applicants would be expected to be increasingly qualified, and workplace evaluations would be based on new standards of efficiency and productivity — the expectation to live a more fulfilling, successful, productive life will increase along with the ability to do so, and it is conceivable that the pressures created by this new paradigm of technological existence would result in increased mental health problems across demographics.

Alongside the pervasive psychological problems that may accompany an elevated mode of being is the risk of losing this upgraded status altogether. A posthuman mode of being refines the human experience to be one that is dependent on external technology — if the supply of this infrastructure is interrupted, withdrawal symptoms may be significant.

And then, there is the subtle, lingering doubt, that perhaps human enhancement won’t be the tool that enables Man’s triumph over Machine, but one that catalyses their convergence. As researchers continue to find ways to endow AIs with increasingly human capabilities, (feeding in volumes of data to ‘teach’ creativity, emotion, and individuality), it is worth pondering if biohacking ourselves to perfection will make us, instead, increasingly uniform, and alike. Perhaps even robotic, when we are able to self-upgrade software and computing power, and interface wirelessly with networks to enable frictionless communication, blurring the distinction between the capabilities, functions, and identities of Human and Machine.