Humanity 2.0: The Dawn of the Neural Renaissance and the Paradox of Information Overload

Hold onto your neurons, folks, because the ground beneath our feet just underwent a seismic shift. Neuralink, the company pioneering Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), has been the first to do the previously unthinkable: implant BCI technology inside a human brain. While headlines scream "thought-controlled limbs" and "telepathy," the real story unfolds on a far grander canvas. This, my friends, might be the dawn of a neural renaissance.

Neuralink's mission: Create a generalized brain interface to restore autonomy to those with unmet medical needs today and unlock human potential tomorrow.

Neuralink, like all  Elon's companies, aligns with a growing desire to push the boundaries of progress. This is one reason (there are many) people are so beguiled by Elon - he's seeing so far into the future that people struggle to know how to interpret his intentions and reasoning. But before we get too carried away by visions of robotic arms and Jedi mind tricks, let's delve deeper. While initial applications of BCI’s will focus on helping those with movement-related diseases like ALS, the true potential lies in venturing beyond the motor cortex and into the heart of cognitive function. Imagine seamlessly understanding any language, processing information at breakneck speeds, or even experiencing the world through bat-like sonar or eagle-eyed vision. What if, instead of a select few scientists observing cosmic energy, we could all perceive it?

The big question: how can we hope to coexist with an intelligence that grows exponentially, while ours remains linear? We waste time debating the hypotheticals, boundaries, ethics and safety while ignoring a harsh reality: we are increasingly outmatched by our own creations. The world needs to wake up.  It needs solutions, solutions that elude us all.

Perhaps this is humanity's catch-22: AI eludes us because we lack sufficient congnitive bandwidth (individually or collectively) to contain it.

My argument: its actually more risky to avoid our elephant in the room: human-machine integration. It may be the only realistic long-term solution to the alignment problem, to avoid dystopian outcomes.

(Current) Limitations to BCI's

To be clear - BCI's aren't anywhere near ready for prime-time. We need more bandwidth! BCI methods are too slow and limited. Non-invasive retail versions that do exist use electrodes, eye-tracking, and subvocalization. But these can only transmit a few bits per second. The next phase of potential requires silicon co-brains, which can store and process 100 times more data than our biological brains. How can we do that?

There are two promising ways to increase the bandwidth between our brains and computers: implants and optogenetics. Implants are chips that are inserted into the skull and communicate with the brain and the outside world. Optogenetics is a technique that uses light to control and monitor neural activity, by genetically modifying neurons to be light-sensitive:

Optogenetics is a technique to control or to monitor neural activity with light which is achieved by the genetic introduction of light-sensitive proteins. Optogenetic activators [“opsins”] are used to control neurons, whereas monitoring of neuronal activity can be performed with genetically encoded sensors for ions (e.g. calcium) or membrane voltage. The effector in this system is light that has the advantage to operate with high spatial and temporal resolution at multiple wavelengths and locations.

Combining these methods, we can achieve 100 times more bandwidth than non-invasive techniques we know of today.

Obviously, these methods are not without risks. Implants require surgery and may cause infections or rejection. Optogenetics involves genetic manipulation and may cause side effects or complications. And both methods raise ethical, legal, and social issues. How can we overcome these obstacles and convince people to adopt them?

Now, before the ethical alarm bells start clanging, consider this: evolution doesn't stop. This article is an opportunity to shape dialogue consciously, responsibly, and ethically, leveraging augmented intelligence to build a better future.

On Future Shock

Make no mistake: this kind of rapid intelligence change is disorienting. It's truly a "future shock" that overwhelms our ability to adapt. This is where open-mindedness becomes our shield, and adaptability our weapon. Remember, the singularity, that hypothetical point where technology transcends our grasp, isn't something we can pinpoint on a calendar. It happens when artificial intelligence surpasses human intellectual capability in all significant ways, leading to a runaway effect of self-improvement by AI that transforms every aspect of life as we know it.

The truth is, limitations in our own "human operating systems” are abundant. Xenophobia, political polarization, information-induced anxiety. We never evolved to know how to handle the sheer amount of information our minds are bombarded with each day. Some would even go so far to say that social media and highly virulent and emotional headlines are 'amusing ourselves to death':

"...Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think."

Is it all that surprising, then, to learn how more and more people are getting attention disorders, generalized anxiety, and depression? For related reasons, why does everyone seem to have meditation apps on their phone, or secretly fleeing to the world of entheogens as a coping mechanism? We are all feeling this dissonance. These are just a few symptoms of the bandwidth limitations we struggle with daily.

Our collective attention spans dwindle as informational complexity skyrockets, pushing us towards a breaking point of anxiety and overload. Collective sensemaking breaks down, and we throw our hands up, passively ceding control to authoritarians and populists who say they have the answers to our problems.

Origins of Cyborg Cynicism

So where did our cynicism about the future come from? Boomer generations remember the Jetsons (1962-63) zipping around in their sleek, chrome dream machines. But instead of soaring through the skies, the 1960s ended with a collective thud, leaving those futuristic visions firmly on the tarmac. What happened? Enter the precautionary principle and its close cousin, safetyism.

These weren't bad ideas in themselves. The principle advocates caution when potential harm is uncertain, while safetyism prioritizes minimizing risks. In the aftermath of events like the thalidomide scandal, where a seemingly harmless drug caused birth defects, and later events like Chernobyl: caution seemed wise.

But like Icarus, we flew too close to the sun of caution. Regulations piled up, environmental concerns mounted, and public anxieties simmered. Grandiose public works projects like supersonic jets and nuclear power faced fierce opposition. The cost-benefit equation tilted towards "safe" but uninspiring options.

Flying cars, the epitome of audacious innovation, became victims of this shift. Concerns about noise, safety, and infrastructure proved insurmountable. Instead, we poured our resources into the burgeoning field of computers. The internet, once a niche academic tool, blossomed into the interconnected world we know today. Social media platforms replaced flying cars as the emblems of progress, albeit in a decidedly earthbound form.

Was it all worth it? The internet's impact is undeniable, fostering communication, collaboration, and even revolution. But did we lose something in the process? The spirit of bold innovation, the audacity to dream big and reach for the sky, seems to have waned.

This isn't just about flying cars (though wouldn't they be cool?). It's about striking a balance. Regulation shouldn't stifle ambition, but guide it responsibly. We can learn from the past, acknowledging the value of caution while fostering innovation within reasonable frameworks.

While well-intentioned, these concerns about risk led to an overcautious approach, prioritizing software advancements ("bits") over ambitious projects like flying cars or advanced infrastructure ("atoms"). As investor Peter Thiel famously quipped:

“We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.” – Peter Thiel

Enter the e/acc Movement

There are growing subsets of technologists and futurists who are starting to embrace bold yet calculated risks for a brighter future. This new movement is called e/acc, also known as 'effective acceleration'. The goal: define a framework for responsible acceleration of technology of all forms through open discourse, with the hope of ensuring human flourishing overall for as long as possible.

Unlike "safetyism," e/acc champions calculated risks because it's a realization that inaction against existential threats like climate change or superintelligence is even riskier. Specifically, attempting to ban development on BCI's is itself a risk: technologically stagnant societies are historically unstable and prone to collapse. Degrowth means we also lose the capability to solve problems, to make progress.

e/acc’s approach to AI is “let everyone have at it, speed it up”. It aims for a multi-polar AI world: thousands (or millions or billions) of superintelligent, specialized AIs, keeping each other in check. The key idea: avoiding dystopia means decentralized AI's, limiting centralized control by a single nation state or massive multinational.

I won't delve into all the tenets of Effective Accelerationism, instead I'll leave breadcrumbs to Wikipedia's definition of E/ACC, and a more nuanced explanation by the previously anonymous Guillaume Verdon, AKA 'Beff Jezos' on X.com.

Beware of Presentism & Hindsight Bias

The future sneaks up on you, not in a blaze of nanotechnology and fusion rockets, but through a continual subtle shift in the fabric of reality. Remember those multi-ton desktop computers that filled entire rooms? Today, orders of magnitude greater processing and storage fits in your pocket, humming silently against your thigh. Similarly, the ability to fly across continents in hours was unimaginable for most people a century ago. Today, air travel is safer than a car by a wide margin, available and affordable. We've taken for granted how amazing it is to be flying hundreds of miles an hour in a aluminum/steel tube a mile above the ground: our biggest gripe is inconsistent wifi!

To put it plainly: what seemed outlandish yesterday becomes tomorrow's commonplace. This has never not been true. This, my friends, is the insidious hand of presentism and hindsight bias at work.

Here's how this plays out:

1. Limited scope of imagination: It's difficult to imagine things outside our frame of reference and technological capabilities. What seems utterly fantastical today may simply be beyond our understanding, if not seemingly impossible.

2. Exponential growth: Technological advancements often follow exponential curves, meaning they accelerate rapidly over time. This growth pattern can be hard to grasp intuitively, leading us to underestimate the speed of change.

3. Focus on the recent past (hindsight bias): We tend to base our predictions on our recent experiences, which creates a blind spot for radical, disruptive innovations.

4. News as snapshots: Media tends to highlight novelty and extremes, further reinforcing the perception of the future as radically different (often scarier) version the present.

We, with our limited imaginations shackled by the present, struggle to grasp the exponential curve of progress. We also tend to view the past as somehow more predictable that it actually was at the time.

Today, BCI's like Neuralink are sowing the seeds of tomorrow. They are still mostly hidden in labs and workshops, whispered about in conferences and online forums. The self-driving car that seemed like a pipe dream a decade ago now navigates city streets. The bionic limb that belonged to science fiction adorns real bodies, restoring mobility and defying limitations. And that neural implant you scoffed at over breakfast? It's closer than you think, quietly revolutionizing the way we interact with the world, blurring the lines between human and machine. In a very real sense, we are already cyborgs.

My key point here: don't underestimate the future, it holds surprises far more potent than your skepticism. Presentism bias, that insidious thief of imagination, blinds us to the exponential leaps technology takes. Moore's Law, a prophet in the silicon jungle, whispers of ever-doubling transistor counts, hinting at an unseen future rushing towards us.

Are BCI's like Neuralink a 'solution' to AI alignment risks?

Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI's) today - or as Tim Urban likes to call them - a wizard-hat for the brain, currently don't offer superpowers. Instead, they bridge the gap between our limited biological capacities and the vast potential of machine intelligence. Here are some of the potential use-cases:

• Effortlessly mastering languages, instantly accessing information databases, or even directly experiencing the world through new senses like magnetic fields. BCIs could revolutionize learning, fostering deeper connections and empathy across cultures.
• Boost your brainpower: Forget cramming for exams. Imagine expanding your short-term memory tenfold, enhancing focus, and optimizing learning through personalized education tailored to your strengths. BCI could unlock your full cognitive potential.
• Unleash creativity: Brainstorming amplified! Collaborate in real-time, share ideas directly, and translate emotions into art forms seamlessly. BCIs could revolutionize the way we innovate and express ourselves.
• Transcend physical limitations: Bionic limbs controlled by thought, virtual experiences pushing the boundaries of imagination, and cognitive resilience defying age—BCIs could empower individuals with disabilities and offer unique abilities beyond natural human limitations.
• Become a multitasker extraordinaire: Juggle complex tasks effortlessly with BCI-powered parallel processing. Imagine managing information flow and workloads with optimal efficiency, boosting productivity and unlocking new capabilities.

But Alex - won't computers in our brains turn us into the Borg? Won't we lose our unique 'human essence' and consciousness?

This isn't about erasing our individuality! It's about expanding human potential while being honest about our own limitations. It's about creating a future where everyone, regardless of their starting point, can participate and contribute. No longer isolated intellects, we become a more collaborative, collective sensemaking species, working with our silicon co-brains to tackle the universes greatest challenges.

What is the problem with the 'keep intelligences separate' approach?

1. it assumes there isn't already strong market forces to keep AI development progressing at an increasing pace. What's the impact of stopping AI-driven development of something akin to a universal vaccine or antibiotic? The reduction (and in some cases reversal) of human flourishing is likely a far worse outcome than continuing AI development.
2. If we intend to keep AI and humans as completely separate intelligence substrates - what keeps ASI (artificial super intelligence) from caring about humans that are 1000x less intelligent? We already struggle to understand what an LLM is doing. Let's Assume humans are about 1000x more intelligent than ants. Do most humans care if they step on an ant, even accidentally? What about 1000 ants?

But let's not sugarcoat this journey. Retail BCI's are still years away, and necessitates caution and open dialogue. There are a number of limitations to BCI's today. Here are the current hurdles, and their possible solutions:

1. Regulatory. Getting approval for human trials on (semi) invasive brain technologies is a long haul prospect. Neuralink has already been litigated against for causing undue suffering to ~12 macaque monkeys (the headlines failed to mention that the monkeys had pre-existing, 'terminal' conditions). The latest human implant has no shortage of opponents. Regulation is an extremely high-friction (but necessary) process in the name of safety of the test subjects. None of the research on implants or BCI's is (officially) aimed at healthy humans; it’s all for fixing pre-existing medical conditions where the prognosis of a disease/movement disorder/etc. is worse than trying an implant. In contrast, Regulators are completely and utterly unaccustomed to balancing risk vs reward for a civilization-scope issue, to avoid a non-medical existential risk for all Humanity.
2. Engineering. Nueralink bandwidth is still limited. Sure, a human could type nearly 70 words a minute using only their brain, or play a game of pong, but the technology is nowhere near even a 'human copilot' level of user experience. Entire software libraries, api's, and eventually new coding languages will need to be built to interface BCI's with today's internet and software. Engineering must also solve critical privacy risks, lest we lose cognitive liberty.
3. Societal acceptance. Even if the devices existed and regulations were approved, invasive BCI feels very, very weird to the vast majority of people. This concern is real, but stopping progress will decrease our ability to contain AI risk. Elon cannot be the only advocate for pursuing BCI's as a way to reduce AI takeover: the Overton Window will likely need to shift so that mass society is more open to such technologies.
4. Bottom-up demand. Consumers are already clamoring for devices with non-invasive BCI, such as this device for lucid dreaming, as well as devices that shoot electrical signals to parts of your brain to enhance memory, alleviate anxiety, and more. Increase demand, alongside resulting cost decreases, create a feedback loop of BCI's getting better and cheaper. As discussed, this means higher bandwidth and reduced latency. If using your brain to type is still slower than using your fingers - what's the point? Arguably, this inevitably leads to direct, increasingly invasive BCI's.

This last point may likely be the biggest driver overall. The interest for BCI's for medical treatment will lead to consumer demand for 'generally enhanced' abilities. Those with cash and guts will get invasive-BCI implants from the black market or travel to a jurisdiction that allows these procedures. A few may even consider DIY implants. As with many early innovations in GPS and nuclear energy - military use cases are obvious. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) invented the digital protocols that gave birth to the Internet.

Once BCI technology gets traction, the historical pattern we've seen with the printing press, energy, cars, computers and phones is unmistakable. Manufacturing and cost improvements always produce a chain of insights, breakthroughs, and new tools to reinforce downstream productive recombination's of existing technology. Will we still need computers and phones once BCI technology gets powerful enough? Likely not.

Early adopters of high-bandwidth BCI will have an edge over the rest - which pushes incentives towards democratization. We've seen this before: A mobile phone in 1984 cost $4,000 ($9,000 in inflation-adjusted terms), and you could only make calls! No data, no apps, no nothing.

Ethics and fairness aside, this is supply/demand economics. Manufacturing advances inevitably evolve and improve, with intense competition, leading to lower costs. Again, this is what smartphones have done for the past 40+ years.

Yes, there are risks, but the question of this post is: are those risks outweighed by the benefits? Instead of fearing dystopian outcomes (e.g.Skynet or the paper clip maximizer), let's embrace the possibilities. Let's ask ourselves: what kind of world could we build if we combined the best of human and machine intelligence?

Conclusion

I am a pragmatic futurist. I try to anticipate and shape the future based on realistic and practical considerations. One the one hand, BCI's seem like a crazy solution to one of the biggest challenges we face as a species is the emergence of ASI (artificial superintelligence). The concern that AI technology could potentially surpass and threaten humans is real. I do not deny this risk, but I propose a different way of framing and addressing it.

I have no illusions: this is philosophically, ethically and morally difficult territory! But rather than trying to compete or cooperate with an ASI, I suggest we (iteratively) begin to integrate with it. This is not a defeatist or submissive attitude toward human limitation, but a logical and strategic realization. Without a bidirectional connection between our brains and the AI, we become even more vulnerable and isolated. Forms of BCI's are the key to ensuring our survival and prosperity in the face of ASI. Instead of facing a scenario of ‘mutually assured destruction’ as in the nuclear war analogy, we can create a situation of mutually assured survival, even net flourishing, by merging parts of our biological brains with silicon intelligence.

BCIs could very well be humanity's 'ace in the hole'. We can augment our minds with the power of machine intelligence, boosting our creativity, memory, and problem-solving. We enhance collective sensemaking and governance by reducing our cognitive biases that currently limit our ability to understand and empathize with large-scale cultural and ideological differences.

Civilizations appetite for useful and cheaper technology is boundless. This will not change. To summarize what's coming:

The first wave of 'proto- BCIs' will be mostly non-invasive, using wearable devices that connect to our smartphones and computers. They will offer us convenient features like telepathy, mind control, language translation, and more. We're already forecasting growing demand and a lucrative market for BCI developers and entrepreneurs.

The second wave of BCIs will be more radical, bridging the gap between our biological and silicon brains. They will increase the bandwidth of information flow between us and our devices, creating a symbiotic relationship. This will unlock human superintelligence (HSI), a level of intelligence that transcends the limits of our natural abilities.

The third wave of BCIs will be transformative, changing the nature of our existence. Most intelligences in the future will be silicon-based, whether they originated from humans, AI, or a combination of both. They will be sovereign general superintelligences (SGIs), capable of exploring and reshaping the cosmos on a grand scale.

Accelerating BCIs for the masses (bci/acc) is the best way to ensure our survival and prosperity in the face of ASI.  It is also the most exciting and optimistic vision for our future, a way to elevate humanity towards the stars.

This conversation is crucial, not just for the future of technology, but for the future of humanity itself. Let's approach it with responsibility, openness, and a touch of audacious optimism. The classic line from Terminator 2 was correct, we just had the wrong premise: 'The future is not set, there is no fate but what we make for ourselves.' The neural renaissance beckons, and it's up to us to decide what kind of world we want to create. With careful thought and collaboration, we can ensure a future that benefits us all.