by Laboratory of the Future analysis team | Jan 6, 2025 | geopolitics, States and technology
Piketty, Varoufakis, and Acemoglu warn that the contest between the social network X and Brasilia is yet another chapter in the “alarming” global effort by large companies to control the digital development of countries.
Editorial Note from Future Lab: The issue of Brazil’s digital sovereignty, which is extremely important, is also imbued with ideological questions. None of the opposing parties is innocent—not Brazil, embodied by Alexandre de Moraes, Supreme Court Judge, who is not exactly a champion of free speech, nor his personal opponent, Elon Musk. On the other hand, some activists, such as former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis—an extraordinary writer who must be taken very seriously in all related matters and whose latest book (Technofeudalism) we recommend, clearly oriented in a Marxist direction—are also involved. That is why we believe these issues must be analyzed carefully and with the necessary rational filters. We are witnessing a huge global battle between those who call for “digital sovereignty,” which is absolutely logical and should not be politicized, and the real “feudalism” of the big tech companies, which, as has already been demonstrated before parliamentary authorities in the European Union and the United States, is an extremely dangerous reality. Moreover, the “freedom of expression” of Marxist and pro-Marxist currents has traditionally proven to be just as dangerous. It will be necessary to walk a careful middle path.
Prof. Dr. Ricardo Petrissans Aguilar
COLLABORATION BY Manuel G. Pascual – EL PAÍS OF MADRID
The echoes of the ban on the social network X in Brazil continue to resonate three weeks later. Motivated by the “repeated noncompliance with judicial orders” by the platform led by Elon Musk, which refused to block profiles that contribute to the “mass dissemination of Nazi, racist, fascist, hateful, and anti-democratic speeches,” the forced closure of the platform has been interpreted as a wake-up call to society against the excesses of tech companies. However, it remains to be seen what real effects this blow will have.
Half a dozen economists, academics, and activists published an open letter on Tuesday demanding an end to the pressure exerted by “big tech companies” on Brasilia to curb the deployment of various initiatives aimed at defending its digital sovereignty.
“We wish to express our deep concern regarding the continuous attacks by large tech companies and their allies against Brazil’s digital sovereignty,” the document begins. The dispute between the Brazilian government and Elon Musk is only the latest example of a broader effort to “restrict the ability of sovereign nations to set a digital development agenda free from the control of megacorporations based in the US,” the signatories emphasize, among them economists such as Thomas Piketty, who shook the field a decade ago with Capital in the Twenty-First Century; Yanis Varoufakis, the brief Greek Finance Minister who handled the country’s bailout; inequality expert Daron Acemoglu; and Mariana Mazzucato. Other prominent names supporting the text include Shoshana Zuboff, author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, essayist Evgeny Morozov, and jurist Renata Ávila.
¿What does the second photo from Plaza de Colón imply for the right?
Academics emphasize that Brazil has become the “key front” in the “global conflict between tech corporations and those seeking to build a democratic, people-centered digital landscape focused on social and economic development.” According to the document, President Lula da Silva is pursuing digital independence for his country by reducing its dependence on foreign entities for data, AI capabilities, and digital infrastructure, and by forcing big tech companies “to pay fair taxes, comply with local laws, and be held accountable for the social externalities of their business models.”
The response to this Brazilian regulatory push has been the challenge posed by some tech companies, such as X, and the threats from others aimed at “undermining initiatives that seek technological autonomy” in the American country. The signatories of the document believe that what is happening there concerns us all. “More than a warning to Brazil, [the actions of big tech companies] send a worrying message to the world: that democratic countries seeking independence from the dominance of big tech companies risk having their democracies disrupted, with some corporations supporting far-right movements and parties.”
“We demand that big tech companies cease their attempts to sabotage Brazil’s initiatives aimed at developing independent capabilities in artificial intelligence, public digital infrastructure, data management, and cloud technology,” the letter states, without specifying which acts of sabotage it refers to. One of the document’s signatories points to AWS, an Amazon subsidiary, which held a meeting with government representatives three weeks ago to offer a service proposal to support the sovereign cloud project that Brasilia is working on. “Big tech companies not only control the digital world, but also lobby and work against the public sector’s ability to create and maintain an independent digital agenda,” reads the statement presented today.
From the European exception to the American:
Brazil, host of the November G20 summit, presented its AI plan in July, which envisions an investment of 4 billion dollars over the next ten years and, under the slogan “IA para o Bem de Todos” (AI for the Good of All), includes the regulation of this technology to establish clear limits and ensure its development is inclusive and sustainable. The government also has a program underway to establish a national cloud computing infrastructure.
The Brazilian case is further confirmation that the regulatory momentum around technology is not solely a European prerogative. The EU’s ambitious legal framework in digital matters, which will be completed in 2026 when the AI Regulation comes into effect, has inspired legislative initiatives in some U.S. states and other countries. This week, the report on AI governance—on which the UN has been working for a year and a half—will be released.
“This is a crucial moment for the world. We need an independent approach to reclaim digital sovereignty and control over our public digital sphere,” the statement concludes.
Text of the Letter mentioned in the heading:
Public Letter: Against the Attack of Big Tech on Digital Sovereignties
The undersigned wish to express our deep concern over the continuous attacks by big tech companies and their allies on Brazil’s digital sovereignty. Brazil’s dispute with Elon Musk is just the latest example of a broader effort to restrict the ability of sovereign nations to define a digital development agenda free from the control of megacorporations based in the United States.
At the end of August, Brazil’s Supreme Court banned [a certain action in] 2023. Subsequently, President Lula da Silva made clear the Brazilian government’s intention to pursue digital independence: to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign entities for data, artificial intelligence capabilities, and digital infrastructure, and to promote the development of local technological ecosystems. In line with these objectives, the Brazilian state also intends to force big tech companies to pay fair taxes, comply with local laws, and be held accountable for the social externalities of their business models, which often promote violence and inequality.
These efforts have encountered attacks from the owner of X and from far-right leaders who complain about democracy and free speech. But precisely because the digital space lacks internationally and democratically agreed-upon regulations, big tech companies operate as rulers, governing what should be moderated and what is promoted on their platforms.
Moreover, X and other companies have begun organizing themselves and rallying their allies both inside and outside the country to undermine initiatives aimed at achieving Brazil’s technological autonomy. More than just a warning to Brazil, their actions send a worrying message to the world: that democratic countries seeking to free themselves from the dominance of Big Tech run the risk of having their democracies disrupted, with some Big Tech companies supporting far-right movements and parties.
The Brazilian case has become the fundamental front in the evolving global conflict between big tech corporations and those seeking to build a democratic, people-centered digital landscape focused on social and economic development.
Big tech companies not only control the digital world, but they also exert pressure and work against the public sector’s ability to create and maintain an independent digital agenda based on local values, needs, and aspirations. When their financial interests are at stake, they happily work with authoritarian governments. What we need is enough digital space for states to steer technology and to put people and the planet ahead of private profits or unilateral state control.
All those who defend democratic values should support Brazil in its quest for digital sovereignty. We demand that big tech companies cease their attempts to sabotage Brazil’s initiatives aimed at building independent capabilities in artificial intelligence, public digital infrastructure, data management, and cloud technology. These attacks undermine not only the rights of Brazilian citizens but also the broader aspirations of every democratic nation to achieve technological sovereignty.
We also call on the Brazilian government to remain steadfast in implementing its digital agenda and to denounce any pressures against it. The United Nations system and governments around the world should support these efforts. This is a crucial moment for the world. An independent approach to reclaim digital sovereignty and control over our public digital sphere cannot wait. There is also an urgent need to develop, within the UN framework, the basic principles of transnational regulation for accessing and using digital services while promoting digital ecosystems that put people and the planet ahead of profits, so that this testing ground for Big Tech does not become a common practice in other territories.
Anita Gurumurthy, IT for Change
Çağrı Çavuş, SOMO
Adjunct Professor Cecilia Rikap, University College London, IIPP, and CONICET
Professor Cédric Durand, University of Geneva
Professor CP Chandrasekhar, IDEA and PERI, UMass
Dr. Cory Doctorow (hc), author, activist, journalist
Professor Cristina Caffarra, University College London, CEPR RPN Contest
Professor Daron Acemoglu, MIT Economics
David Adler, International Progressive
Ekaitz Cancela, Center for the Advancement of Infrastructural Imagination (CAII)
Associate Professor Edemilson Paraná, LUT University
Professor Emiliano Brancaccio, University of Sannio
Dr. Evgeny Morozov, author and producer of “The Santiago Boys” and “A Sense of Rebellion”
Adjunct Professor Francesca Bria, University College London, IIPP, and Stiftung Mercator
Professor Gabriel Zucman, Paris School of Economics and UC Berkeley
Professor Helena Martins, Federal University of Ceará
Professor Jason Hickel, ICTA-UAB and LSE
Dr. Jathan Sadowski, Monash University
Professor Jayati Ghosh, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics
Dr. Joel Rabinovich, King’s College London
Professor José Graziano da Silva, Zero Hunger Institute – former Director General of the FAO
Professor José van Dijck, Utrecht University
Professor Juan Martín Graña, CONICET and the National University of San Martín
Professor Julia Cagé, Sciences Po Paris, Department of Economics
Professor Marcela Amaro, National Autonomous University of Mexico
Professor Marcos Dantas, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Professor Margarita Olivera, Institute of Economics, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Professor Mariana Mazzucato, University College London, author of Mission Economy
Margarida Silva, SOMO
Dr. María Farrell, writer
Marietje Schaake, Stanford University, author of The Tech Coup
Professor Martín Becerra, CONICET and the University of Buenos Aires
Professor Martín Guzmán, School of Public and International Affairs (SIPA), Columbia University
Nandini Chami, IT for Change
Dr. Niall Reddy, Wits University
Professor Nick Couldry, London School of Economics
Dr. Nick Srnicek, King’s College London
Professor Paola Ricaurte Quijano, Monterrey Institute of Technology
Dr. Paolo Gerbaudo, Complutense University of Madrid
Paris Marx, technology presenter (“Technology Won’t Save Us”)
Professor Phoebe Moore, University of Essex
Dr. Raffaele Giammetti, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio
Renata Ávila, CEO – Open Knowledge Foundation, affiliated with CIS at CNRS, France
Robin Berjon, Governance Technologist
Rodrigo Fernández, SOMO
Professor Sergio Amadeu da Silveira, Federal University of ABC
Professor Shoshana Zuboff, author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power
Sofía Scasserra, Transnational Institute (TNI)
Professor Stefano Lucarelli, University of Bergamo
Professor Thomas Piketty, Paris School of Economics and EHESS
Professor Ulises Mejías, State University of New York
Professor Ugo Pagano, University of Siena
Professor Wolfgang Streeck, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies
Yanis Varoufakis, Secretary General, MeRA25
by Laboratory of the Future analysis team | Sep 21, 2024 | Economy, Globalization, States and technology
Companies like ExxonMobil and Blackstone are also major funders of the climate crisis, according to a new union report.
Some of the world’s largest companies have been accused of undermining democracy worldwide by financially supporting far-right political movements, funding and exacerbating the climate crisis, and violating labor rights and human rights, according to a report released on Monday by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
Amazon, Tesla, Meta, ExxonMobil, Blackstone, Vanguard, and Glencore are the companies named in the report. Corporate lobbying groups are attempting to shape global policy at the United Nations’ Future Summit to be held in New York City on September 22-23.
In Amazon, the report highlights the company’s size and role as the fifth-largest employer in the world and the largest online retailer and cloud computing service, which has had a profound impact on industries and communities where it operates.
“The company has become infamous for its anti-union practices and low wages across several continents, its monopoly on e-commerce, its atrocious carbon emissions through its AWS data centers, its tax evasion, and its lobbying at national and international levels,” states the report.
The report cites, among other cases, Amazon’s high workplace injury rates in the U.S., the company’s challenge to the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), its efforts in Canada to overturn labor legislation, the banning of Amazon lobbyists from entering the European Parliament for refusing to attend hearings on workers’ rights violations, and its refusal to negotiate with unions in Germany. Amazon has also funded far-right political groups to undermine women’s rights and antitrust legislation, and its retail website has been used by hate groups to raise money and sell products.
In Tesla, the report cites the company’s anti-union opposition in the U.S., Germany, and Sweden; human rights violations within its supply chains; and Elon Musk’s personal opposition to unions and democracy, challenges to the NLRB in the U.S., and his support for political leaders Donald Trump, Javier Milei in Argentina, and Narendra Modi in India.
The report cites Meta, the world’s largest social media company, for its significant role in enabling far-right propaganda and movements to use its platforms to grow their membership and gain support both in the U.S. and abroad. It also mentions the company’s retaliation against regulatory measures taken in Canada and its costly lobbying efforts against data privacy laws.
Glencore, the world’s largest mining company by revenue, was included in the report for its role in financing global campaigns against indigenous communities and activists.
Blackstone, the private equity firm led by Stephen Schwarzman, a billionaire supporter of Donald Trump, was cited in the report for its role in financing far-right political movements, investing in fossil fuel projects, and deforestation in the Amazon.
“Blackstone’s network has spent tens of millions of dollars supporting politicians and political forces that promise to prevent or eliminate regulations that could hold it accountable,” the report states. Blackstone has questioned the deforestation claims in the Amazon and sold its remaining shares in the company in question in 2021. The company argued that it does not make direct political contributions and that the contributions from its executives are personal.
The Vanguard Group was included in the report for its role in financing some of the most anti-democratic corporations in the world. ExxonMobil was cited for funding climate-denying research and lobbying aggressively against environmental regulations.
Even in “strong democracies,” workers’ demands “are overwhelmed by corporate lobbying operations, whether in policymaking or in the elections themselves,” said Todd Brogan, ITUC’s Campaigns and Organizing Director.
“It’s about power, who holds it, and who sets the agenda. As trade unionists, we know that unless we are organized, the boss sets the agenda at the workplace, and as citizens of our countries, we know that unless we are organized and demand responsive governments that actually meet people’s needs, it will be corporate power setting the agenda.
“They are playing the long game, and it’s about transferring power away from democracy at all levels to a point where they don’t care about the effects on workers but are focused on maximizing their influence, their extractive power, and their profits,” Brogan added. “Now is the time for international and multi-sector strategies, because in many cases, multinational corporations are more powerful than states and have no democratic accountability except to organized workers.”
The ITUC includes affiliates from labor groups in 169 nations and territories worldwide, representing 191 million workers, including the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the United States, and the Trades Union Congress in the UK. Given that 4 billion people worldwide will participate in the 2024 elections, the federation is pushing for the development of a binding international treaty through the open-ended intergovernmental working group to demand that transnational companies be held accountable to international human rights laws.
Original Source: The Guardian, London, Michael Sainato. Translation by Laboratorio del Futuro team.
by Laboratory of the Future analysis team | Jun 28, 2023 | Transhumanism
Neuralink has already received the first approval to test its brain implants on humans.
The company began in 2022 the process with the pharmaceutical regulator to conduct clinical trials of its chip. In the short term, it opens hope for the relief of a range of medical problems, while in the medium term, it represents fuel for transhumanism, a matter that has sparked deep discussions, as it could radically alter human life and the mind.
Neuralink, Elon Musk’s brain chip company, announced it has received the green light from the pharmaceutical regulator to conduct its first human trial. The controversial entrepreneur predicted in December that approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency overseeing products, medicines, and surgical procedures in the U.S., would arrive during the first half of this year. He was right, although the approval wasn’t easy, as they were rejected last year. The company, founded in 2016, reported that this is the first step that will allow its technology to “help many people.”
“Recruitment is not yet open for our clinical trial,” the company posted on Twitter, promising more information in the coming days. Neuralink has been raising expectations about its advancements for several years. In 2020, Musk stated in a presentation that the chips manufactured by the company could cure some types of paralysis and certain cases of insomnia. The controversial magnate, who has often been careless with his words, even claimed that the device could give users “superhuman” vision. At that time, they showcased one of their first implants, in a pig.
A year later, in 2021, Neuralink made one of its most viral presentations. A monkey, Pager, appeared in front of a TV and attentively watched what was happening on the screen, a game of Pong. The primate controlled the game just by looking, thanks to a pair of semiconductors the size of a 25-cent coin implanted in both hemispheres of its brain.
Musk said a few months ago that they had started “extremely careful” paperwork with the FDA and were working with the agency. “I think probably in six months we will be able to put our first Neuralink in a human,” said the controversial billionaire, who recently helped Florida Governor Ron DeSantis launch his 2024 U.S. presidential campaign on Twitter.
Before this, Musk had claimed at least three times since 2019 that he was seeking FDA approval for clinical trials in humans. But it wasn’t until 2022 that the company started the legal process with the regulator. According to Reuters, this first request was rejected by the FDA authorities shortly after being submitted. The regulator was concerned about the safety of the battery used in the semiconductor, which is made of lithium. There were also worries that the small cables extending from the brain could be invasive in other areas of the skull. Finally, the regulators also raised questions about the implications of removing the chip and whether this process could damage brain tissue.
A report from the British agency cited experts who doubted whether Neuralink could quickly address the concerns raised by the government agency, which had the final say in 85% of human trials conducted in the last three years. “Neuralink doesn’t seem to have the necessary experience or mindset to launch this on the market soon,” said a neural engineer quoted in the piece published in March.
Neuralink is not the only company preparing to conduct the first human trials of its technology. One of its main competitors, Paradromics, is also seeking approval. Founded in 2015, the Austin-based company has made giant strides with its implants and has grown its team to become a rising player with around fifty researchers. Its product, called Connexus Direct Data, promises patients with paralysis to regain some communication skills.
The promising profile of its technology led the FDA to include it in its select program for cutting-edge devices, where 32 initiatives receive a faster review process, as they could benefit patients in their treatments and diagnoses. Another company competing in the emerging brain implant industry is Synchron. The companies differ in the size, weight, and functioning of their semiconductors and in the surgical methods for implantation. However, all see the future and the benefits they could bring to millions of people with optimism.
by Laboratory of the Future analysis team | Jun 25, 2023 | Transhumanism
Neuralink, one of Elon Musk’s companies, received authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for brain implant experimentation on humans, a matter that, for now – we will have to believe in it wholeheartedly – had only been developed in animals. Initially, the authorization is limited to seeking an improvement (talking about a cure is premature at the moment), a restoration in seriously damaged brain conditions. By the way, it’s well understood that these are steps toward transhumanism. And speaking of transhumanism…
Neuralink, Elon Musk’s company, announced that it has received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct human studies of its brain implants, which have so far been tested only on animals.
The company revealed the FDA’s green light for the first human trials on its Twitter account. “This represents an important first step that will someday allow our technology to help many people,” the company wrote.
In early December, Musk had assured that Neuralink, a company that has not been without controversy due to its animal experiments, was ready to conduct brain implants in humans within six months.
At that time, Musk noted that the FDA had expressed concerns about the potential overheating of the implant (which includes microcables in the brain tissue), as it could lead to chemical leakage from the implant into the brain mass.
The implant’s function will be to “read” brain activity to transmit commands that could help restore some severely damaged brain functions after a stroke or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which result in serious communication impairments.
So far, brain implants have been developed in one direction: from the brain to the outside (usually a computer that processes the signals), but Neuralink’s project aims to also transfer information in the other direction, toward the brain.
Neuralink is developing two types of implants in parallel: one to restore vision “even in those who have never had it” and another to restore basic bodily functions in people with paralysis due to spinal cord damage.
Now, let’s talk a little about Neuralink, the company that is pioneering all of this and that we will need to watch closely in the future to observe its evolution and particularly its developments.
Neuralink Corporation is an American neurotechnology company specialized in the development of implantable brain-computer interfaces, also known as Brain-Machine Interfaces (BMI), founded by Elon Musk. They are currently developing a device capable of treating patients suffering from disabilities caused by neurological disorders through direct brain stimulation. And, according to Musk’s statements, the technology developed by Neuralink aims, in the long term, to achieve total symbiosis with artificial intelligence. Currently, it is conducting experiments on animals in collaboration with the University of California, Davis.
Neuralink was founded in 2016 by Elon Musk, Ben Rapoport, Dongjin Seo, Max Hodak, Paul Merolla, Philip Sabes, Tim Gardner, Tim Hanson, and Vanessa Tolosa.
In April 2017, the blog Wait But Why reported that the company aimed to manufacture devices to treat serious brain diseases in the short term, with the ultimate goal of human enhancement, sometimes called transhumanism. Musk said his interest in the idea partly stemmed from the science fiction concept of the “neural lace” in the fictional universe of The Culture, a series of 10 novels by Iain M. Banks.
Musk defined the neural lace as a “digital layer above the cortex” that would not necessarily require extensive surgical insertion, but ideally an implant through a vein or artery. Musk explained that the long-term goal is to achieve “symbiosis with artificial intelligence,” which he perceives as an existential threat to humanity if not controlled. As of 2017, some neural prosthetics can interpret brain signals and allow disabled individuals to control their prosthetic arms and legs. Musk spoke of aiming to link that technology with implants that, instead of activating movement, could interact at broadband speed with other types of software and external devices.
As of 2020, Neuralink is headquartered in the Mission District of San Francisco, sharing the old Pioneer factory building with OpenAI, another company co-founded by Musk. Musk was the majority owner of Neuralink in September 2018, but did not hold an executive position. The role of CEO was held by Jared Birchall, who has also been described as the financial director and president of Neuralink, as well as an executive for several other companies that Musk founded or co-founded. The trademark “Neuralink” was purchased from its previous owners in January 2017.
By August 2020, only two of the eight founding scientists remained with the company, according to an article in Stat News, which reported that Neuralink had faced “years of internal conflict in which rushed timelines clashed with the slow, incremental pace of science.” With Musk in the picture, this should not have been surprising.
Since its founding, the Neuralink team has been characterized by its high level of discretion in revealing information, as the company’s existence was not announced to the public until 2017, and information about the technology they were developing was not revealed until 2019.
The company has received $158 million in funding, of which $100 million has been invested by Musk himself, and it currently has 90 employees.
The “Neuralink” trademark was acquired from its previous owners in January 2017.
The company is made up of experts from various fields such as neuroscience, biochemistry, robotics, applied mathematics, machinery, among others. It is currently seeking experts in various scientific areas to form its team.
Its founding members are:
- Elon Musk.
- Max Hodak, President of the company. Previously worked on brain-computer interfaces at Duke University.
- Matthew McDougall, Head of Neurosurgery at Neuralink and neurosurgeon at the California Pacific Medical Center. He was previously employed at Stanford, where he worked in labs that implanted and designed brain-computer interfaces.
- Vanessa Tolosa, Director of Neural Interfaces. She previously led a neurotechnology team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, working with a wide range of technological prosthesis technology used in both clinical and academic settings.
- DJ Seo, Director of the Implantation System. He was the co-inventor of “neural dust,” a technology he developed while studying at UC Berkeley.
- Philip Sabes, Senior Scientist. He was previously a Professor of Physiology at UC San Francisco and led a lab studying how the brain processes sensory and motor signals.
- Tim Gardner, Professor of Biology at Boston University, who worked on implanting brain-computer interfaces in birds.
- Ben Rapoport, Neurosurgeon with a PhD in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT.
- Tim Hanson, Researcher at the Berkeley Sensor and Actuator Center.
Neuralink aims in the short term to create brain-computer interfaces that can treat various diseases caused by neurological disorders. These interfaces have the potential to help people with a wide range of clinical disorders. Researchers have demonstrated that, using these interfaces, patients have been able to control computer cursors, robotic prosthetics, and speech synthesizers. This demonstrates their potential use in the medical field to treat patients with disabilities due to neurological disorders. All studies experimenting with brain-computer interfaces have been carried out using systems that do not have more than 256 electrodes.
Neuralink is building a fully integrated Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) system, also known as BMI (Brain-Machine Interface). BCIs can be used to treat neurological disorders and reveal information about brain functions. Karageorgos et al. have introduced HALO (Hardware Architecture for Low-Power BCIs), an architecture for implantable BCIs, which enables the treatment of disorders such as epilepsy. HALO also records and processes data that can be used for a better understanding of the brain.
Epilepsy is characterized by epileptic seizures defined by uncontrolled and excessive electrical activity of neurons. Neural signals are processed to predict seizures. When an increase in brain excitation occurs, the brain requires inhibitory synapses to attenuate and regulate the activity of other cells. BCIs then electrically stimulate neurons to mitigate the severity of seizures. However, the time between the onset of the seizure and stimulation must be in tens of milliseconds. Additionally, low-power hardware is needed for safe and chronic implantation.
Although such studies have demonstrated that information transfer between machines and the brain is possible, the development of brain-computer interfaces has been limited by their inability to collect information from a greater number of neurons. For this reason, Neuralink’s team seeks to develop a device capable of increasing the order of magnitude of neurons from which information can be extracted and stimulated safely and durably through a simple and automated procedure. In other words, collecting information and selectively stimulating as many neurons as possible across various areas of the brain.
The long-term goal is for brain-computer interfaces to be available to the general public and integrated as essential technology in daily life, similar to how technologies like mobile phones or laptops are currently essential in everyday life.
Musk has repeatedly stated his belief that artificial intelligence poses a risk to humans due to the possibility that it may surpass human abilities. For him, the best solution to the problem would be, instead of continuing to develop AI systems external to humans, to achieve total symbiosis with artificial intelligence so that it can be controlled. This could be achieved by creating a layer of artificial intelligence over the cerebral cortex, a system that is being developed with Neuralink.
Musk’s interest in brain-computer interfaces began, in part, due to the influence of a science fiction concept called “Neural Lace,” which is part of the fictional universe described in The Culture, a series of novels written by Iain Banks.
People could become telepathic and communicate without words by accessing thoughts. Beyond thoughts, sensory experiences could be communicated from human to human, like neural postmen, where listening, seeing, and tasting something could be possible. Alternatively, life experiences such as enjoying a meal or skydiving could be virtually lived and offer sensations as if they were real. It is more plausible that within the next 20 years, it will be possible to create images of what people are thinking.
BCIs might also offer opportunities to enhance the brain itself, whether invasive or non-invasive. BCIs could help us remember more and better, learn faster, make better decisions, and solve problems without bias, in exchange for having to go through hard training.
Currently, artificial intelligence (AI) “is an important technological tool that enables the operation of many neural interfaces.” BMIs use AI to convert neural signals into digital data, for example, to interpret instructions from the brain to move a prosthetic arm. In the future, a more complex relationship between BCIs and AI could emerge. Computers and brains are different, but they could be seen as complementary. Humans have decision-making ability and emotional intelligence, while computers have the capacity to process a considerable amount of data quickly. This is why several technology experts believe that beneficial impacts for people could arise by linking human and artificial intelligence through BMIs.
In 2019, during a live presentation at the California Academy of Sciences, Neuralink’s team revealed to the public the technology behind the first prototype they had been working on. This system involves ultrathin probes that will be inserted into the brain, a neurosurgical robot that will perform the operations, and a high-density electronic system capable of processing information from neurons.
According to Neuralink’s team, the system they are developing will use biocompatible probes that will be inserted into the brain through an automated process performed by a surgical robot. The goal of these probes is to locate electrical signals in the brain using a series of electrodes connected to them. This experiment has already been performed with a monkey, which was given the ability to play Pong telepathically. Elon Musk hopes that this invention will serve future humanity in communicating telepathically.
The probes developed by Neuralink are designed to be biocompatible, minimizing the possibility of the body rejecting them. These probes are mainly made of polyamide, a flexible and durable material, and coated with a thin layer of gold, making them compatible with the brain’s biological environment. The combination of these materials reduces the likelihood of the brain perceiving them as foreign objects and rejecting them, which is a common concern with long-term brain implants.
Each probe consists of a set of thin threads containing electrodes capable of detecting the brain’s electrical signals. These threads interact with an electronic system that amplifies and acquires brain signals, enabling the collection of highly precise data. Each probe may have 48 or 96 threads, and each of these threads contains 32 independent electrodes, allowing a configuration with up to 3072 electrodes. This large number of electrodes provides much more detailed and comprehensive signal capture across several areas of the brain, which is crucial for Neuralink’s goals in restoring or enhancing brain functions.
One of the main challenges of this type of technology is the rigidity of the probes. When inserted into the brain, rigid materials can be recognized as foreign bodies, triggering an immune response from the body, creating scar tissue around the implant. This can lead to the probes becoming ineffective over time. To mitigate this problem, Neuralink has developed a surgical robot capable of inserting multiple flexible probes quickly and precisely, reducing brain trauma and the possibility of an immune response.
The robot features an extremely thin insertion needle, with a diameter of only 40 micrometers, made of tungsten-rhenium, a highly durable and resistant material. This needle is designed to hook onto the loops of the probes and place them with great precision in the areas of the brain necessary for signal recording. This process is automated, increasing accuracy and reducing the risks associated with traditional surgical interventions.
In summary, Neuralink is developing a technology that, thanks to the flexibility of its probes and the precision of the surgical robot, has the potential to transform the way we treat neurological disorders, and could even open the door to more advanced future applications like telepathic communication or cognitive enhancement through integration with artificial intelligence.
by Laboratory of the Future analysis team | Jun 19, 2023 | Artificial intelligence, News
THE RISE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. CAN AUTOMATION REDEFINE THE LABOR MARKET WITHOUT LEAVING ANYONE BEHIND?
Experts believe that AI will partially automate the affected jobs while encouraging the emergence of new professional profiles. At the same time, challenges such as professional reskilling or ethical issues will need to be addressed.
ALMOST ALL PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES HAVE PROCESSES THAT CAN BE AUTOMATED TO ACHIEVE MORE EFFICIENCY. While the use of technology is nothing new in any sector, there is an increasing generalization of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to save time and costs, while increasing productivity.
Recently, with the rise of generative AI — such as ChatGPT — this trend is affecting both intellectual jobs and those that require more physical effort. In light of this new reality in the work environment, voices for and against automation are already emerging due to its impact on the professional market. At the same time, reflections on how to train workers or the ethical implications of this coexistence between humans and intelligent machines are gaining ground in the public debate.
The relevance of this historical moment demands continuous exchange of credible opinions, which is why, with this premise in mind, El Confidencial organized a roundtable titled “The Future of Work: Automation for More and Better Jobs.” The expert panel included representatives from companies affected by automation and the use of AI, technology companies, and academics specializing in the subject. The participants were Iñaki Ugarte, General Director of Operations at Primera Milla, Amazon Spain; Belén Martín, Vice President of Hybrid Cloud at IBM Consulting; Manuel Espiñeira, Director of Digital Business Technologies Solutions at Minsait, an Indra company; and Ignacio López Sánchez, Professor of Business Organization at the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM).
To contextualize and understand the origins of the automation boom, Iñaki Ugarte listed “three factors” that have accelerated its penetration: “New technologies alongside the digital era and big data, the Millennial and Generation Z workers as digital natives or migrants, and the international context, which, after the pandemic and the complex geopolitical scenario, is forcing industry relocation.” Regarding whether automation will eliminate jobs, he had a clear answer: “Far from there being less work for people, new jobs are actually being created.”
The logical question is what types of jobs are being created with the advent of AI in the workplace. In this regard, Belén Martín provided examples: “Just in the last three months, two profiles have emerged that are revolutionizing everything. One of them is the prompt engineer, people specialized in asking questions to artificial intelligences — they function as a sort of instructor — and whose Spanish translation could be ‘ingeniero de peticiones’. The other is the ethical algorithm trainer, and their role is to prevent social biases.” The Vice President of Hybrid Cloud at IBM Consulting clarified that “although these profiles seem related only to STEM disciplines — science, technology, engineering, and mathematics — there are also profiles in the humanities such as linguists or philosophers, which opens up an unlimited range of possibilities.”
“In the last three months, profiles like ‘prompt engineer’ and ethical algorithm trainer have appeared,” Belén Martín (IBM)
From Minsait, an Indra subsidiary, they consider that “automation will be partial in most jobs,” as explained by their spokesperson during the roundtable. “Approximately 60% of jobs have the potential for partial automation of their tasks, but only 7% of them can actually be automated in more than 50% of their processes,” clarified Manuel Espiñeira, who then recalled that “in the 1950s, there was a catalog in the U.S. of jobs that were expected to disappear with the automation of the time. The list included 270 jobs, and yet only the elevator operator profession disappeared.” To elaborate further on his future forecast, he specified that “the key is the quality of the information analysis a professional can do with AI tools, as it allows them to make high-level decisions, such as a better diagnosis in the case of a doctor. However, this shows that doctors will continue to exist as a profession,” he assured.
This view was shared by Ignacio López Sánchez. For the Professor of Business Organization at the Complutense University of Madrid, “there are certain jobs with a relatively high percentage of repetitive tasks, and therefore automatable, but others not so much. This will force companies to reorganize and define new profiles that, in some cases, will have AI as copilots,” he emphasized. Furthermore, the professor raised a challenge picked up by the rest of the participants in the discussion: “Will we be able to give workers the proper training to perform these new tasks that are coming? And more importantly: What will we do with the people whose jobs will disappear? Will they be able to be retrained for new profiles?” he asked.
Reskilling, educational flexibility, and ethical oversight:
From Iñaki Ugarte’s perspective, “every time a new disruptive technology appears, the same questions arise, and the answer must be clear: no one should be left behind,” he stressed. “But the issue of reskilling has a handicap — the educational system, as it lacks the agility to adapt to new needs,” he continued. Belén Martín agreed and confirmed that “retraining workers is indeed the only way to maintain those affected jobs, and moreover, investing in them through training generates a sense of belonging, which is really useful within the company,” she pointed out.
“60% of jobs will automate part of their tasks, but only 7% will do so in more than 50% of their processes,” Manuel Espiñeira (Minsait)
To highlight the consensus on this topic, Manuel Espiñeira also pointed out that “the academic curriculum requires more flexibility, especially when it comes to new technologies.” “Until now, the university system teaches people to think, but it is the companies that teach how to apply what has been learned,” he specified. His discussion partner, López Sánchez, further expanded on this when he emphasized that “adaptations should be quick, as well as identifying which positions are in demand. We cannot do this from the academic environment; it is the companies, as generators of wealth and employment, that need to put their needs on the table and communicate them to universities. Even so,” insisted the professor from UCM, “there will still be the problem, at least for now, that formal education is especially difficult to modify in Spain and Europe.”
In the final stretch of the debate, a classic issue in discussions about automation and AI came up: the ethical implications. “It has been shown that when artificial intelligences are trained, they carry over the social biases that we humans have. There are traces of the developer in the technology itself. There are many examples of this in recent decades. One of the biggest challenges is precisely ensuring that this doesn’t happen,” admitted Belén Martín. To address this problem, Iñaki Ugarte advised “using people as tools, that is, forming diverse and representative groups in which social diversity is guaranteed to avoid the transfer of biases to AI.”
Another complementary solution, this time proposed by Ignacio López Sánchez, is “to create supervisory bodies, as already happens in other areas with entities like the National Securities Market Commission or the European Central Bank, for example. However, this would be for supervision, not regulation.” Manuel Espiñeira agreed with his words and added that “excessive regulation could limit the development of AI and other associated technologies.” To conclude, the Minsait expert explained that “the real challenge is to reach a balance point in regulation.”
Team of the Future Lab Analysis. Meeting – Round Table of El Confidencial Newspaper, Spain – Topic: The Rise of AI: Can Automation Redefine the Labor Market Without Leaving Anyone Behind?