For the past two years, I have been sounding the alarm intentionally about advancements in brain-computer interfaces (BCI). Why? Humanity is quickly moving toward a technological singularity unlike anything we’ve seen before. In my mind, a time is coming when we will have to fight to stay human.
If you’ve been here since the beginning of The Edge of Us Substack community (thank you, too), you’ll know I started my first post by explaining the technological singularity and where it intersects with BCI.
Phoenix Peng, a prominent Chinese brain-computer interface (BCI) CEO at Gestala, once told me that the singularity is when “carbon-based lifestyles and silica-based lifestyles merge.” In this future, brain-computer interfaces would collect that data. When AI, BCI, and quantum computing intersect, the line between human thought and machine intelligence may dissolve into something entirely new.
A time when humans and machines become one.
The Human and Technological Singularities Converge
Part of the ideology of The Edge of Us Substack is to look at all forms of singularities (the inner or personal singularity, technological, human/collective, cultural, and what I also call the convergent singularity, where all of these singularities come to one convergent point and a paradigm shift happens). Your personal singularity reflects the person you need to become in life, and for society, when the technological, human, and cultural converge, a paradigm shift occurs.
Today, I want to focus on the intersection of technological and human singularities. In my opinion, that's where BCI sits. Once this technology moves into the consumer landscape, we have two choices: use it to advance humanity’s well-being and the quality and equality of life for all, or move into a place of mass control where we lose those freedoms.
To me, as society currently stands, I see us moving into a darker time with BCI. But it doesn’t have to be like that. We can become informed, act now, and make good decisions in government and policy.
I remember a lawyer-turned-Hollywood producer saying to me, “Chrissy, if you want to help people, you have to change policy.” And he’s right.
I might not be in government to do that, but I can start here. You can start here, and we can start together by informing one another of what the future could look like if we don’t stand together, become informed and empowered, and recognize that we, as individuals, have a say, have a voice, and that there are more of us than them at the top.
I empower you today to please keep reading this article, inform yourself and others, and share this piece. One day, we want to look back at these words and say, “I did my part to put humanity in the right direction. I used my voice.”
The United Nations Warning on BCI
Last week, for The Debrief, I wrote an article titled “U.N. Warns Your Brain Data May Soon Be Used Against You.” It covered how the United Nations made a bold statement on neurotechnology and called for limits on this rapidly advancing technology.
In the Secretary-General’s report to the General Assembly, senior human rights official Claudia Fuentes Julio argued that brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and other related neurotechnologies could threaten freedom of thought, privacy, and the right to a fair trial, potentially targeting marginalized communities worldwide.
“Neurotechnology accesses, measures and analyses brain signals,” the UN chief wrote in his report. “If these signals are treated as direct indicators of thoughts, intentions or truthfulness, the use of neural data points could undermine how we understand and value each of us as human beings,” said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his report on neurotechnology and its implications for human rights.
Currently, regulations governing BCIs are largely focused on healthcare in the United States and other countries. For instance, as of October 2026, Neuralink’s implanted brain-computer interface is subject to the FDA’s medical-device regulations, including rules governing investigational devices and human clinical trials.
However, the consumer neurotechnology sector is growing quickly, and BCI seems perfectly positioned to become a popular consumer market overnight. Originally, non-implantable, consumer-based BCIs were primarily used for gaming. But companies such as Sabi, which makes a BCI beanie, and AlterEgo are developing technologies that go beyond gaming. These products are lifestyle technologies designed to integrate into daily life, whether by allowing people to communicate with others using only their minds, translating deliberately thought-out words into text on a computer through a beanie, or using mental commands to interact with AI without speaking, typing, or undergoing brain surgery.
It’s remarkable!
But it could lead humanity down a slippery slope.
Reading Our Thoughts to Incriminate Ourselves
Secretary-General António Guterres warned, “Neurotechnology, including new and emerging forms, raises profound human rights challenges when applied to the administration of justice. Its expansion beyond clinical settings into investigative, judicial and correctional contexts introduces significant risks, alongside potential benefits.”
It sounds like the premise of the popular Tom Cruise movie Minority Report. Although the idea isn’t too far removed from a scenario that could become reality: police accessing suspects’ brain data to extract information or evidence about potential future outcomes and predict what crimes they might commit.
The New York Times reports that, for the past two decades, police in India have used a technology known as Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) profiling to assess whether a suspect may have been involved in a crime. The idea is that a suspect’s brain waves are read during a scan. The technology has reportedly been used in several murder and rape cases. However, BEOS testing is not accepted as evidence by the Indian court system.
The MIND Act
On September 24, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senators John Cornyn and Ron Wyden proposed legislation to regulate brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and protect neural data over the long term. The proposed Management of Individuals’ Neural Data Act of 2025 (MIND Act) calls for federal agencies, including the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to develop guidelines and a framework addressing the ethical, safety, and privacy implications of neurotechnology. The legislation aims to address potential risks and ensure individuals are adequately protected under U.S. law as these technologies advance.
Since last year, the MIND Act has not been updated or advanced at the federal level. However, individual states are taking neural data protection into their own hands. For example, Colorado, California, and Montana have passed laws to protect citizens’ neural data. Other countries are also leading the push, including Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Chile.
In an email exchange with The Debrief in October of last year, Kurt Haggstrom, Chief Commercial Officer at Synchron, a company founded by CEO Tom Oxley, said:
“Responsible oversight builds the public trust that medical innovation depends on—and that’s essential for bringing BCIs safely into healthcare systems.
“Our CEO, Dr. Tom Oxley, serves on the World Economic Forum’s Neurotechnology Governance Committee, where he’s helping shape the global dialogue on how to advance these technologies safely, ethically, and inclusively,” he added.
Elon Musk and the Neuro-Elite
Many companies developing neural data technologies are at the forefront of advancements that could change humanity overnight.
Elon Musk’s Neuralink is one of the companies Morgan Stanley has focused on in an October 8 private report titled Neuralink: AI in your brAIn. The report argues that Musk and his Neuralink team are at the forefront of a technological shift that society may not be ready for, one with far-reaching implications for everything from healthcare and gaming to defense, investing, and society at large.
The report suggests that healthcare may have served as a backdoor into the broader consumer brain-computer interface market. It also positions Musk as paving the way for a “neuro-elite”: a small class of wealthy individuals who can afford implants, potentially deepening existing social inequalities around the world.
China and the Escalation of BCI Development
Since 2010, China has prioritized brain-computer interface development, positioning itself as a global contender. In March 2026, China became the first country to approve an invasive BCI for commercial use. The device, known as NEO, was developed by Shanghai-based Neuracle Medical Technology and is designed to help patients with paralysis caused by cervical spinal cord injuries regain the ability to grasp objects with their hands. Currently, commercial approval applies only in China, and the device has not been authorized for sale worldwide.
The United Nations has addressed BCI-related threats by putting forward a list of recommendations, including internationally aligned regulations, safeguarding thoughts as “highly sensitive personal data,” and requiring explicit consent before neurotechnology can be used in criminal justice settings.
As BCIs become increasingly prevalent in healthcare, criminal justice, and consumer products, concerns are growing over the emergence of a “neuro-elite.” Human rights organizations are also calling for stronger policies and oversight.
Is it time for countries around the world to unite in establishing a global coalition to protect human rights before the technology advances beyond our ability to regulate it?
