Noland Arbaugh, the first person to receive a brain-computer interface (BCI) from Elon Musk’s Neuralink, says he was amazed by how intuitive the company’s device, called “The Link,” felt after it was installed.
“I was not expecting it to be as good as it is,” Arbaugh said in a recent interview with The Debrief. “I think there were moments when I realized, like, ‘Oh, this is a much bigger deal than I thought it was.'”
“This was not just something that would take, you know, some signals and output, like a click or a movement of a cursor,” Arbaugh added. “It is something that will learn over time as you give it more data.”
Arbaugh says that, at times, it felt almost as though his experiences were occurring on a subconscious or subliminal level, as though Neuralink’s device “may also be able to anticipate what you want to do next just a little bit faster than you, I guess, than you can think it.”
“BCIs are absolutely operating on a subliminal level,” said Julia Mossbridge, PhD, cognitive neuroscientist and member of the Alfred Lee Loomis Innovation Council at the nonpartisan Stimson Center, who is not associated with Neuralink.
“There are nonconscious processes that are happening in the brain all the time, and BCIs can tap into these before we make a conscious decision,” said Mossbridge. “BCIs have to harness those processes or else they would feel horribly delayed to us, because our brains are also using those processes to make our conscious decisions, and we want BCIs to make their decisions at around the same time we consciously do.”
“But the success of BCIs relies on continuous improvement,” Mossbridge added. “Someone with a BCI essentially trains it to reinforce the connection between the decision we consciously make and the one the BCI makes. So while it can be scary to imagine a machine making decisions about what to do before you feel you’ve made that decision, in reality, your conscious mind—without the BCI—is making a decision based on many of the very same nonconscious or subliminal processes that the BCI is harnessing.
“So this kind of ‘spooky’ anticipation of your decision is just a demonstration of what already goes on in your brain, all the time,” Mossbridge said.
“In theory, future systems that combine long-term brain data and artificial intelligence might begin to identify broader patterns and make predictions over longer timeframes,” said Dr. Tom Chau, Senior Scientist at Bloorview Research Institute and a professor at the Institute of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Toronto. However, Chau cautioned that “this remains speculative at present.”
“As this field advances, it’s essential to preserve user autonomy and ensure that public understanding of BCIs is grounded in evidence-based, user-centred perspectives,” Chau said, “especially around ethics, consent, and long-term impact.”
Data Ownership Rights in the Era of BCIs
Arbaugh is one of only a handful of people in the world experiencing life with a BCI firsthand. With so few individuals living with these implants, they are uniquely positioned to shape the conversation and help guide future policy.
In his recent interview, Arbaugh spoke candidly about the deeply personal nature of BCI data, expressing strong concerns about ownership, consent, and ethical handling, particularly when the technology reaches consumer markets. He emphasized that BCIs are not just another technological tool, but are intimately tied to identity and consciousness.
“I think it is a very personal device,” Arbaugh told The Debrief. “We’re talking about yourself, your personality in a lot of ways.”
Arbaugh shared that while he agreed to participate in Neuralink’s study, he doesn’t currently feel he owns his BCI data. “ I guess if I don’t want them to have my data, I should just leave the study and, you know, I’ll take the rest of my neural data and keep it to myself.”
“That’s one thing that I think I’d be very passionate about is who the data belongs to, who’s allowed to collect data and what consent looks like,” Arbaugh added, expressing his view that “there needs to be [a] big conversation about who the neural data belongs to.”
Arbaugh elaborated further on the connection he has with the device, involving how he feels “in tune” and “very intimate with the technology.” By gaining a practical understanding of the device, Arbaugh believes he’s well-positioned to engage in meaningful dialogue. “I understand it, and so talking to legislators is something that I think I would like to do at some point and try to affect some real change.”
Overall, Arbaugh’s remarks reflect a deep ethical concern for preserving human dignity and an overarching ethical code for handling such technologies, which can ensure legal and ethical protections, ownership rights, and adherence to ethical standards in the era of BCI development.
“Neural data exhibits properties of both biometric and medical data, but it also goes beyond them. Like biometric data, it can uniquely identify individuals,” said Daryl Lim, the H. Laddie Montague Jr. Chair in Law and associate dean for research and innovation with Penn State University’s Institute for Computational and Data Sciences (ICDS).
“Like medical data, it may reveal sensitive information about mental health or neurological conditions,” Lim told The Debrief in an email. “Neural data is also more intimate. It can reflect thoughts, intentions, emotions, or cognitive states. These are dimensions of personhood that existing legal categories do not fully capture.”
“It may be necessary to establish a new legal category specifically for neural data, one that integrates not only privacy and data protection norms, but also deeper concerns about mental autonomy, cognitive liberty, and freedom of thought,” Lim said.
Lim emphasized that existing frameworks are inadequate for the complex challenges posed by brain-computer interfaces, calling for a “coordinated, interdisciplinary governance model,” which he says will be “essential for regulating BCI data.”
“While the FDA plays a critical role in ensuring safety and efficacy, it is not equipped to address the full spectrum of concerns raised by brain-computer interfaces, particularly those involving privacy, cognitive liberty, discrimination, and ethical use,” Lim told The Debrief. “Effective oversight would require a consortium of agencies, including the FDA, FTC, HHS, NIST, and civil rights offices, linked through a central coordinating body capable of integrating perspectives from health care, technology, ethics, and civil liberties.”
Lim also proposed the creation of a neurotechnology-focused task force or commission, but suggests that interim steps, such as voluntary standards and partnerships, may be necessary due to the current political challenges that the implementation of such technologies faces.
Currently, there is no universally accepted ethical standard or global guidance on BCIs. With the United States currently leading the charge in the development of the technology, Chinese companies like the Chinese Institute for Brain Research (CIBR) and NeuCyber NeuroTech are quickly advancing the race to develop brain-computer interfaces, matching Neuralink’s steps by successfully implanting chips in three human participants. The Chinese company says it aims to have 13 total implant participants by the end of 2025.
Arbaugh for the future
In the interview, Arbaugh discussed some of the long-term concerns he’s considered since becoming one of the first Neuralink BCI test subjects.
“I think the one thing that … is always in the back of my mind, quite literally, is what the chip is doing to my brain or my body long term,” Arbaugh said. “That’s part of the study, it’s why we’re doing it. It’s something that we need to know. I was more than happy to take that on, and I wouldn’t necessarily say I’m worried about it.”
“Who knows what having a chip on your skull, threads in your brain, is doing to you long term?” Arbaugh still asks. “Like, who knows what that’s gonna look like?”
“Long-term data will come out with this at some point,” Arbaugh said, “and we will know what these things—what the chips—are doing to your brain, like, physically.”
Overall, Arbaugh says he has experienced no real issues apart from when threads from the device became detached last year, which Neuralink technicians were able to repair. Still, he wonders about the longer-term impacts of such technology on human physiology.
“Maybe it is doing something terribly wrong to my brain,” Arbaugh joked, though he said he doubts this to be the case. “I haven’t felt anything bad. We’ve been doing checkups pretty regularly, and we haven’t seen any adverse effects. But it’s just one of those things, like, you don’t know until all the data comes out long term.”
Speaking with The Debrief, Dr. Daniel Weaver, a primary care doctor, expressed some apprehensions about the implications of brain-computer interface technology on human neurological health.
“I’ve got some real concerns about this area,” Weaver said. “It’s frontier neuroscience. There are some concerns regarding the potential for damage to our delicate neuronal tissues from sustained external stimulation and inputs.”
“The allure of augmentation of our biological brain functions with non-biological inputs superficially has an appeal,” Weaver said, “but there may be some realistic issues that develop in medium to long term. This may be through burnout of brain tissues, loss of some organic processes, and potential for imbalances between the emotional aspects of our brains and the data inputs, which could present new challenging psychological issues.”
“There is also the inevitable worry that it would be easier for malign actors to remotely influence thoughts or behaviours,” Weaver added, “and the concern about what happens if the interface abruptly stops working at a key moment?”
As brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) rapidly advance, important questions arise about free will, consciousness, and other issues in the progression toward humanity’s increasingly technologically augmented future. How can we create policies—not just in North America, but globally—that ensure this technology serves humanity’s well-being rather than corporate or political interests?
As Arbaugh puts it, when it comes to the potential ramifications of such technologies, it all comes down to humans and the values and concepts that, throughout time, have most closely resonated with us.
“We’re talking about yourself, your personality in a lot of ways. Your soul.”
However, where things go from here remains uncertain, although the journey promises to be fascinating.
“We’re on the gray area,” Arbaugh added, “teetering over the cliff there.”
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com.