NextQuestion Spotlight

Who Are the “Behind-the-Scenes” Controllers of AI-Simulated Societies?

[:en]Who Are the “Behind-the-Scenes” Controllers of AI-Simulated Societies?[:]

Top Ten Advances in Artificial Intelligence in 2024

[:en]Top Ten Advances in Artificial Intelligence in 2024[:]

Top Ten Advances in Neuropsychiatric Research in 2024

[:en]Top Ten Advances in Neuropsychiatric Research in 2024[:]

Top Ten Advances in Brain Science in 2024

[:en]Top Ten Advances in Brain Science in 2024[:]

Interviews With Scientists

<div style="line-height: 1.5;">
Foreword
On September 21-22, 2023, the Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute (TCCI), in collaboration with the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and the Shanghai Mental Health Center, hosted a special symposium titled “Brain-Machine Interfaces and Philosophy: Interdisciplinary Dialogues.”
The event brought together over 60 experts and scholars from fields including clinical medicine, natural sciences, philosophy and ethics, the science and technology governance, and industrial planning. The discussions focused on core topics such as the role of brain-machine interfaces in national governance, ethical considerations in technology, human cognition, human-computer interaction, and legal challenges.
As one of the symposium’s conveners, Professor Ji Haiqing, a research fellow at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and Director of the Science and Technology Philosophy Research Office, was invited for an exclusive interview with us. From the perspective of technological ethics, Professor Ji offered a deep analysis of the social integration process of brain-machine interfaces and their potential impacts. He shared insights into the motivations behind organizing the symposium and provided unique perspectives on the ethical distinctions between brain-machine interfaces and traditional medical devices, the implications of these technologies for privacy, the expansion of human boundaries, and human enhancement.
The following is the interview with Ji Haiqing. We have condensed the text to make it easier to read.
Question: Could you introduce yourself to our audience?
Ji Haiqing: I am Ji Haiqing from the Institute of Philosophy at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. During my undergraduate studies, I majored in a science and engineering discipline—computer science. However, over time, I developed a deep interest in topics related to the humanities, society, and history.
In my twenties, I realized that the answers to the questions I had been pondering could not be found in the computer science books I was reading—such as those on data structures or programming languages. As a result, I made what seemed like an unusual decision: I transitioned from studying computer science to pursuing philosophy, hoping to freely explore the issues that intrigued me.
Since then, I have been engaged in philosophical research, particularly in the field of philosophy of technology. I am deeply satisfied with this career because it allows me to observe and reflect on societal and technological developments through thinking, writing, and discussions with colleagues. It’s an intellectually stimulating and fulfilling endeavor.
Question: Thank you for organizing this symposium on brain-machine interfaces and philosophy. What inspired you to host this event?
Ji Haiqing: The motivation for organizing this symposium stemmed from my interest in brain-machine interface (BMI) technology. BMI integrates cutting-edge advancements across various disciplines, including biology, neuroengineering, neuroscience, electronics, and artificial intelligence. It brings together the achievements of these advanced fields and combines them with the human brain—a complex and critical organ.
BMI represents the forefront of the current technological wave and serves as a crucial component worthy of deep investigation. My personal interest in BMI is closely tied to one of my research areas: the ethics of technology.
The ethics of technology explores how science and technology integrate into society. This integration is not merely a straightforward application of technology; it is a complex process involving a delicate balance of competing forces. I often use the analogy of a diver to illustrate this point: a skilled diver enters the water from a great height with barely a splash, but if a new technology is ethically immature, even a dive from a lower height can create significant backlash. The process of integrating technology into society is much the same.
The goal of philosophical and ethical research is to explore how technological products can &#8220;enter the water&#8221;—that is, integrate into society—at the optimal angle, minimizing their negative impacts, aligning them with human values, and facilitating their acceptance by society. My particular focus on BMI arises from its status as a frontier technology. I am eager to understand how it integrates into society.
Will society embrace BMI technology? Will it be fully accepted, or will it encounter resistance—perhaps due to conceptual biases or other factors? These are fascinating questions that led me to combine brain-machine interfaces with philosophy as a research theme. This symposium was an opportunity to bring together experts from various fields to explore these questions collaboratively.
Question: Compared to other medical devices, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) raise more ethical controversies. In your opinion, what are the fundamental differences between BCIs and traditional medical devices?
Ji Haiqing: The uniqueness of BCIs lies in their direct interaction with the human brain, which is an extraordinarily mysterious, critical, and irreplaceable organ. Throughout the history of philosophy, there have been extensive discussions about the mind, the spirit, and thought. Although the term &#8220;heart&#8221; was historically used to describe these concepts, in reality, all advanced cognitive functions, emotions, and bodily regulation are carried out by the brain, not the heart.
Traditional medical devices may replace certain parts of the human body, such as prosthetic limbs or even artificial hearts, but the brain remains irreplaceable. The distinctive feature of BCIs is their direct engagement with this irreplaceable organ. To use a computing analogy, components like hard drives or memory can be replaced in a computer, but if the central processing unit (CPU) is damaged, the entire system becomes nonfunctional. Similarly, the brain plays an essential role in the human body, making the uniqueness of BCI technology particularly significant.
While BCIs hold immense potential for treating neurological and psychiatric disorders, their direct interaction with the human brain necessitates a dedicated focus on their ethical implications. In summary, BCIs are fundamentally different from traditional medical devices because they can access and interact directly with brain data, making their ethical considerations distinct and profound.
Question: In your view, how might BCI technology impact mental privacy?
Ji Haiqing: On the topic of privacy, I’d like to offer a broader perspective from the philosophy and history of technology. Scholars in the philosophy of technology often argue that our value judgments about certain concepts, such as privacy, may appear to be independent, but they are actually closely tied to the tools we use.
These tools not only help us achieve goals but also subtly shape our perceptions. For example, the invention of clocks changed our understanding of time. Before clocks, people perceived time through natural phenomena, such as the rising and setting of the sun or the shadow of a sundial. However, with the advent of clocks, time became segmented into measurable units like hours and minutes.
Similarly, the concept of privacy is deeply intertwined with the tools we use. For instance, the presence of a camera evokes a sense of privacy awareness. If I am willing to be seen by others, I face the camera willingly; if I am not, I avoid it. Privacy is not a concept that exists in a vacuum but is shaped by our attitudes toward and use of technological tools.
Thus, privacy does not imply complete concealment; rather, it depends on whom we wish to share information with and to what extent. This reflects the mutual interaction and co-construction of technology and our perceptions. The crux lies in how we view these technological tools and our attitudes toward privacy.
Question: How will brain-computer interface (BCI) technology affect the boundaries of what it means to be “human”?
Ji Haiqing: This question requires clarifying several concepts. In Chinese, the term &#8220;人&#8221; corresponds to two distinct terms in Western languages: human being and person. Human being refers to humanity in a biological sense, while person denotes an individual human. When discussing person, you and I are distinct individuals, but from the perspective of human beings, we belong to the same species without differentiation.
When it comes to BCIs and their impact on individual personality, there are many intriguing topics to explore. One of the key concepts we often discuss is personal identity. Generally, external changes, such as changing clothes, do not affect our personal identity—who we are. However, when we implant devices like deep brain stimulation (DBS) to regulate physiological states due to illness or other reasons, do we remain the same person? How society perceives the impact of these technologies on personality and identity becomes a critical question.
Interestingly, we have already seen some exceptional cases. For example, the Spanish artist Neil Harbisson was born colorblind. To compensate for this, he implanted a device that converts the color spectrum into sound waves, enabling him to &#8220;hear&#8221; colors. While he successfully gained this ability, it also introduced new challenges. A microphone-like antenna is now attached to his skull, and when crossing border checkpoints, officials noticed his passport photo did not include this device. He was eventually required to take a new photo, incorporating the device as part of his body.
This case illustrates how, as society gradually accepts individuals who merge with technology—sometimes referred to as &#8220;cyborgs&#8221;—the traditional biological boundaries of what constitutes a &#8220;human being&#8221; are shifting. This transformation not only expands the boundaries of humanity but also raises numerous ethical, political, anthropological, and philosophical questions.
Question: Do you think the “technologization of the body” will inevitably become a future trend for humanity?
Ji Haiqing: The answer to this question is both &#8220;yes&#8221; and &#8220;no.&#8221; If we say &#8220;no,&#8221; it’s because the question assumes this will become a new trend in the future. From my perspective, this is not a new trend but rather one that has existed throughout human history. Humanity has always sought to extend its capabilities and activities through the integration of technology. The only difference now is that we are facing a new technological product—BCIs.
From the perspective of the philosophy of technology, technology can be broadly defined as any man-made artifact, an extension of human capabilities. Based on this definition, the integration of humans and technology has always been an ongoing trend. Books such as *Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind* and works in technological anthropology discuss similar themes.
For example, Polynesians in the South Pacific built canoes from island trees to travel between islands, while farmers in temperate northern regions felled large trees to construct ships for long-distance navigation. Despite differences in tools and techniques, both examples illustrate humanity’s use of natural resources in combination with technology to achieve their goals.
Therefore, I believe the fusion of humans and technology is a continuously evolving trend, not merely a phenomenon of the future.
Question: In the discussions surrounding brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and philosophy, are there any significant studies that have been undervalued?
Ji Haiqing: This question touches on many aspects. As BCI devices become more widely applied, numerous issues will gradually emerge. The expansion of their usage will reveal problems over time rather than exposing them all at once.
I believe there are many important topics worthy of attention. If you’re interested, I recommend exploring the work of internationally renowned posthumanist scholars. These academics, while conducting serious research, possess imaginations that rival those of science fiction writers. For instance, American posthumanist scholar Katherine Hayles and others in the field of posthumanism often use imaginative depictions of humanity&#8217;s future existence to explore the relationship between humans and technology. Such works can serve as a source of intellectual inspiration.
Question: What is the topic you are most focused on at the moment?
Ji Haiqing: In recent years, I have been particularly interested in the topic of human enhancement. Human enhancement refers to using technology not only to meet conventional needs, such as treating diseases, but also to further augment individual capabilities. This enhancement goes beyond external devices and integrates with our bodies to improve physiological functions.
Broadly speaking, ever since humanity invented airplanes, we can say that humans have learned to fly, though this differs significantly from how birds fly. Birds rely on their physiological structures to fly, while humans achieve flight through technological tools. The trend of human enhancement likely involves technological tools directly altering human physiological structures, granting us unprecedented abilities. This trend has become especially prominent with advancements in electronics, nanotechnology, and other fields in the 21st century.
I believe this trend of human enhancement prompts an essential question: How will it shape our self-perception and influence our future development?
Question: How can we address the potential social issues arising from human enhancement to ensure technology benefits all populations?
Ji Haiqing: From my perspective, this is not an especially grave issue. Human societies have always adapted to the introduction of new technologies, which often create disparities among groups to some extent.
Looking back at history, some early societies improved farming efficiency with iron tools or agricultural equipment, leading to better harvests, while others domesticated animals to aid in labor. Meanwhile, some regions lacked these conditions. Such inequality has been a historical norm. Over time, societies have employed various methods to mitigate the inequalities brought about by technological advancements.
In our field of research, this phenomenon is known as the issue of technological accessibility. There are, in fact, numerous ways to address the social problems caused by unequal access to technology. If such inequality disrupts social stability or exacerbates class divisions, governments can intervene through public financial measures. For example, governments could procure and provide certain technologies for free or offer subsidies to help those who cannot afford new technologies.
Thus, I don’t see this as an insurmountable problem. We already have well-established economic theories and policy tools to tackle these challenges and ensure that technology can more widely benefit all populations.
<div style/>

[:en]<div style="line-height: 1.5;">
Foreword

On September 21-22, 2023, the Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute (TCCI), in collaboration with the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and the Shanghai Mental Health Center, hosted a special symposium titled “Brain-Machine Interfaces and Philosophy: Interdisciplinary Dialogues.”

The event brought together over 60 experts and scholars from fields including clinical medicine, natural sciences, philosophy and ethics, the science and technology governance, and industrial planning. The discussions focused on core topics such as the role of brain-machine interfaces in national governance, ethical considerations in technology, human cognition, human-computer interaction, and legal challenges.

As one of the symposium’s conveners, Professor Ji Haiqing, a research fellow at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and Director of the Science and Technology Philosophy Research Office, was invited for an exclusive interview with us. From the perspective of technological ethics, Professor Ji offered a deep analysis of the social integration process of brain-machine interfaces and their potential impacts. He shared insights into the motivations behind organizing the symposium and provided unique perspectives on the ethical distinctions between brain-machine interfaces and traditional medical devices, the implications of these technologies for privacy, the expansion of human boundaries, and human enhancement.

The following is the interview with Ji Haiqing. We have condensed the text to make it easier to read.

Question: Could you introduce yourself to our audience?

Ji Haiqing: I am Ji Haiqing from the Institute of Philosophy at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. During my undergraduate studies, I majored in a science and engineering discipline—computer science. However, over time, I developed a deep interest in topics related to the humanities, society, and history.

In my twenties, I realized that the answers to the questions I had been pondering could not be found in the computer science books I was reading—such as those on data structures or programming languages. As a result, I made what seemed like an unusual decision: I transitioned from studying computer science to pursuing philosophy, hoping to freely explore the issues that intrigued me.

Since then, I have been engaged in philosophical research, particularly in the field of philosophy of technology. I am deeply satisfied with this career because it allows me to observe and reflect on societal and technological developments through thinking, writing, and discussions with colleagues. It’s an intellectually stimulating and fulfilling endeavor.

Question: Thank you for organizing this symposium on brain-machine interfaces and philosophy. What inspired you to host this event?

Ji Haiqing: The motivation for organizing this symposium stemmed from my interest in brain-machine interface (BMI) technology. BMI integrates cutting-edge advancements across various disciplines, including biology, neuroengineering, neuroscience, electronics, and artificial intelligence. It brings together the achievements of these advanced fields and combines them with the human brain—a complex and critical organ.

BMI represents the forefront of the current technological wave and serves as a crucial component worthy of deep investigation. My personal interest in BMI is closely tied to one of my research areas: the ethics of technology.

The ethics of technology explores how science and technology integrate into society. This integration is not merely a straightforward application of technology; it is a complex process involving a delicate balance of competing forces. I often use the analogy of a diver to illustrate this point: a skilled diver enters the water from a great height with barely a splash, but if a new technology is ethically immature, even a dive from a lower height can create significant backlash. The process of integrating technology into society is much the same.

The goal of philosophical and ethical research is to explore how technological products can "enter the water"—that is, integrate into society—at the optimal angle, minimizing their negative impacts, aligning them with human values, and facilitating their acceptance by society. My particular focus on BMI arises from its status as a frontier technology. I am eager to understand how it integrates into society.

Will society embrace BMI technology? Will it be fully accepted, or will it encounter resistance—perhaps due to conceptual biases or other factors? These are fascinating questions that led me to combine brain-machine interfaces with philosophy as a research theme. This symposium was an opportunity to bring together experts from various fields to explore these questions collaboratively.

Question: Compared to other medical devices, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) raise more ethical controversies. In your opinion, what are the fundamental differences between BCIs and traditional medical devices?

Ji Haiqing: The uniqueness of BCIs lies in their direct interaction with the human brain, which is an extraordinarily mysterious, critical, and irreplaceable organ. Throughout the history of philosophy, there have been extensive discussions about the mind, the spirit, and thought. Although the term "heart" was historically used to describe these concepts, in reality, all advanced cognitive functions, emotions, and bodily regulation are carried out by the brain, not the heart.

Traditional medical devices may replace certain parts of the human body, such as prosthetic limbs or even artificial hearts, but the brain remains irreplaceable. The distinctive feature of BCIs is their direct engagement with this irreplaceable organ. To use a computing analogy, components like hard drives or memory can be replaced in a computer, but if the central processing unit (CPU) is damaged, the entire system becomes nonfunctional. Similarly, the brain plays an essential role in the human body, making the uniqueness of BCI technology particularly significant.

While BCIs hold immense potential for treating neurological and psychiatric disorders, their direct interaction with the human brain necessitates a dedicated focus on their ethical implications. In summary, BCIs are fundamentally different from traditional medical devices because they can access and interact directly with brain data, making their ethical considerations distinct and profound.

Question: In your view, how might BCI technology impact mental privacy?

Ji Haiqing: On the topic of privacy, I’d like to offer a broader perspective from the philosophy and history of technology. Scholars in the philosophy of technology often argue that our value judgments about certain concepts, such as privacy, may appear to be independent, but they are actually closely tied to the tools we use.

These tools not only help us achieve goals but also subtly shape our perceptions. For example, the invention of clocks changed our understanding of time. Before clocks, people perceived time through natural phenomena, such as the rising and setting of the sun or the shadow of a sundial. However, with the advent of clocks, time became segmented into measurable units like hours and minutes.

Similarly, the concept of privacy is deeply intertwined with the tools we use. For instance, the presence of a camera evokes a sense of privacy awareness. If I am willing to be seen by others, I face the camera willingly; if I am not, I avoid it. Privacy is not a concept that exists in a vacuum but is shaped by our attitudes toward and use of technological tools.

Thus, privacy does not imply complete concealment; rather, it depends on whom we wish to share information with and to what extent. This reflects the mutual interaction and co-construction of technology and our perceptions. The crux lies in how we view these technological tools and our attitudes toward privacy.

Question: How will brain-computer interface (BCI) technology affect the boundaries of what it means to be “human”?

Ji Haiqing: This question requires clarifying several concepts. In Chinese, the term "人" corresponds to two distinct terms in Western languages: human being and person. Human being refers to humanity in a biological sense, while person denotes an individual human. When discussing person, you and I are distinct individuals, but from the perspective of human beings, we belong to the same species without differentiation.

When it comes to BCIs and their impact on individual personality, there are many intriguing topics to explore. One of the key concepts we often discuss is personal identity. Generally, external changes, such as changing clothes, do not affect our personal identity—who we are. However, when we implant devices like deep brain stimulation (DBS) to regulate physiological states due to illness or other reasons, do we remain the same person? How society perceives the impact of these technologies on personality and identity becomes a critical question.

Interestingly, we have already seen some exceptional cases. For example, the Spanish artist Neil Harbisson was born colorblind. To compensate for this, he implanted a device that converts the color spectrum into sound waves, enabling him to "hear" colors. While he successfully gained this ability, it also introduced new challenges. A microphone-like antenna is now attached to his skull, and when crossing border checkpoints, officials noticed his passport photo did not include this device. He was eventually required to take a new photo, incorporating the device as part of his body.

This case illustrates how, as society gradually accepts individuals who merge with technology—sometimes referred to as "cyborgs"—the traditional biological boundaries of what constitutes a "human being" are shifting. This transformation not only expands the boundaries of humanity but also raises numerous ethical, political, anthropological, and philosophical questions.

Question: Do you think the “technologization of the body” will inevitably become a future trend for humanity?

Ji Haiqing: The answer to this question is both "yes" and "no." If we say "no," it’s because the question assumes this will become a new trend in the future. From my perspective, this is not a new trend but rather one that has existed throughout human history. Humanity has always sought to extend its capabilities and activities through the integration of technology. The only difference now is that we are facing a new technological product—BCIs.

From the perspective of the philosophy of technology, technology can be broadly defined as any man-made artifact, an extension of human capabilities. Based on this definition, the integration of humans and technology has always been an ongoing trend. Books such as *Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind* and works in technological anthropology discuss similar themes.

For example, Polynesians in the South Pacific built canoes from island trees to travel between islands, while farmers in temperate northern regions felled large trees to construct ships for long-distance navigation. Despite differences in tools and techniques, both examples illustrate humanity’s use of natural resources in combination with technology to achieve their goals.

Therefore, I believe the fusion of humans and technology is a continuously evolving trend, not merely a phenomenon of the future.

Question: In the discussions surrounding brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and philosophy, are there any significant studies that have been undervalued?

Ji Haiqing: This question touches on many aspects. As BCI devices become more widely applied, numerous issues will gradually emerge. The expansion of their usage will reveal problems over time rather than exposing them all at once.

I believe there are many important topics worthy of attention. If you’re interested, I recommend exploring the work of internationally renowned posthumanist scholars. These academics, while conducting serious research, possess imaginations that rival those of science fiction writers. For instance, American posthumanist scholar Katherine Hayles and others in the field of posthumanism often use imaginative depictions of humanity's future existence to explore the relationship between humans and technology. Such works can serve as a source of intellectual inspiration.

Question: What is the topic you are most focused on at the moment?

Ji Haiqing: In recent years, I have been particularly interested in the topic of human enhancement. Human enhancement refers to using technology not only to meet conventional needs, such as treating diseases, but also to further augment individual capabilities. This enhancement goes beyond external devices and integrates with our bodies to improve physiological functions.

Broadly speaking, ever since humanity invented airplanes, we can say that humans have learned to fly, though this differs significantly from how birds fly. Birds rely on their physiological structures to fly, while humans achieve flight through technological tools. The trend of human enhancement likely involves technological tools directly altering human physiological structures, granting us unprecedented abilities. This trend has become especially prominent with advancements in electronics, nanotechnology, and other fields in the 21st century.

I believe this trend of human enhancement prompts an essential question: How will it shape our self-perception and influence our future development?

Question: How can we address the potential social issues arising from human enhancement to ensure technology benefits all populations?

Ji Haiqing: From my perspective, this is not an especially grave issue. Human societies have always adapted to the introduction of new technologies, which often create disparities among groups to some extent.

Looking back at history, some early societies improved farming efficiency with iron tools or agricultural equipment, leading to better harvests, while others domesticated animals to aid in labor. Meanwhile, some regions lacked these conditions. Such inequality has been a historical norm. Over time, societies have employed various methods to mitigate the inequalities brought about by technological advancements.

In our field of research, this phenomenon is known as the issue of technological accessibility. There are, in fact, numerous ways to address the social problems caused by unequal access to technology. If such inequality disrupts social stability or exacerbates class divisions, governments can intervene through public financial measures. For example, governments could procure and provide certain technologies for free or offer subsidies to help those who cannot afford new technologies.

Thus, I don’t see this as an insurmountable problem. We already have well-established economic theories and policy tools to tackle these challenges and ensure that technology can more widely benefit all populations.
<div style/>[:]

Interview with Ji Haiqing: How Do We Define “Human” in the Context of Brain-Machine Interfaces?

[:en]Interview with Ji Haiqing: How Do We Define “Human” in the Context of Brain-Machine Interfaces?[:]

Latest News

<div style="line-height: 1.5;">
Foreword
With the rapid advancement of technology, Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), serving as a vital bridge between the human brain and external devices, have progressively emerged as a research hotspot in neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Researchers worldwide are actively exploring innovations in this cutting-edge field, striving to overcome technical bottlenecks and enable smarter, more efficient human-machine interactions.
In this exclusive interview, we are honored to have Professor Wang Shouyan, Director of the Center for Neural Modulation and Brain-Computer Interface Research at Fudan University. Professor Wang provides an in-depth analysis of the current state, development advantages, and future trends of BCI research in China. He also shares forward-looking insights and invaluable experiences from his work in the field.
The following is the interview with Professor Wang Shouyan. We have condensed the text to make it easier to read.
Question: What is the current state of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) development in China?
Wang Shouyan: I am from the Institute of Brain-Inspired Intelligence Science and Technology at Fudan University and am responsible for establishing the Center for Neural Modulation and Brain-Computer Interface Research. First, I’d like to thank you for organizing this interview, which provides an opportunity to help the public better understand the true meaning, development status, and key contributors of BCI, rather than focusing solely on Musk’s promotional activities.
In fact, BCI research extends far beyond Musk’s endeavors. Recently, I proposed a four-stage developmental roadmap for BCIs*: (1) Brain Reading, (2) Brain Writing, (3) Brain-Computer Interaction, and (4) Brain-Intelligence Integration. This roadmap encompasses processes from basic signal decoding to advanced human-machine interaction. Currently, research is largely focused on decoding brain signals, a field in which both Musk and Tsinghua University in China are actively engaged.
*Professor Wang emphasizes that the scientific development of BCI will follow four phases: from Brain Reading (decoding motor, speech, memory, and consciousness) to the currently thriving field of Brain Writing (neural function modulation and reconstruction) and Brain-Computer Interaction (brain interfacing), eventually reaching Brain-Intelligence Integration (brain-inspired intelligence and digital life).
From the perspective of decoding brain signals, could using MRI scans also count as “Brain Reading”? International studies have already employed MRI and magnetoencephalography to analyze brain functions, which represents one direction of BCI research. Simultaneously, techniques such as electromagnetic stimulation are being explored to regulate brain activity.
The essence of BCI lies in achieving two-way information exchange between the human brain and external machines. We aim to enable this interaction through more intelligent means, such as using virtual reality to modulate brain activity. Therefore, I proposed BCI 3.0 (Brain-Computer Interaction), which emphasizes deep interaction and integration between the human brain and machines. The more advanced BCI 4.0 (Brain-Intelligence Integration) focuses on the coexistence and collaboration between human brains, intelligent agents, artificial intelligence, and future intelligent societies.
In these research directions, many Chinese neuroscientists, engineers, and physicians are actively exploring. For example, Huashan Hospital and Tiantan Hospital have achieved significant progress in this field.
In addition, we must strengthen science communication. The public needs to recognize the importance of BCI and the national commitment to its development. Relying solely on Musk’s research cannot represent the strategic development of a country. True strategic development involves core foundational technologies, which have profound implications for the health and well-being of society and its people.
Overall, BCI is advancing by integrating multiple factors, driving societal progress, forming the prototype of future industries, and becoming a vital part of national strategic planning.
Question: What are the advantages of China’s BCI development?
Wang Shouyan: First, we have a significant international advantage in terms of talent and disciplinary foundation. China’s BCI research began in the 1980s, and after decades of accumulated experience, we now possess a wealth of experience in BCI research, constituting a major strength.
Second, China has a solid foundation in medical and neurological disease research, which provides essential support for BCI development. We can leverage this foundation to make advances in the medical applications of BCI technologies.
Third, we have a long-standing foundation in technological development, particularly in scientific research and engineering technologies related to BCI, laying a solid groundwork for future progress.
However, we also face challenges, particularly in the integration of interdisciplinary research. We need to enhance collaboration among experts from various fields to jointly address major scientific, technological, and industrial challenges. Both the central government and the Shanghai government are actively planning and addressing these issues to further drive the development of BCIs.
Question: What breakthrough discoveries do you foresee in the field of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) over the next 5 to 10 years?
Wang Shouyan: The future breakthroughs in BCIs are likely to focus on several key areas. First, significant advancements have been made by researchers at ETH Zurich in spinal cord rehabilitation*, particularly in technologies that enable paraplegic patients to walk again. This represents a cutting-edge direction where artificial intelligence intersects with BCIs. Additionally, the integration of brain-reading and brain-writing technologies, especially innovations in deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease and pain management, is currently a major focus of international research in both basic science and clinical medicine.
*In China, the team led by Jia Fumin at Fudan University&#8217;s Institute of Brain-Inspired Intelligence Science and Technology has developed a new generation of implantable brain-spinal interface devices for patients with spinal cord injuries. This innovation won the 2024 National Disruptive Technology Innovation Competition and is expected to undergo its first clinical trial by the end of the year, offering hope for spinal cord injury patients to stand and walk again.
These breakthroughs are not accidental; they are driven by profound underlying forces. By analyzing these driving forces, we can anticipate future trends. China’s early brain initiatives strategically invested in critical technologies such as neural modulation and BCIs, laying a strong foundation for future technological breakthroughs.
One clear trend from these initiatives is the move toward intelligent implantable deep brain stimulation technologies. The national strategic goal is to achieve a leading position in global competition, leveraging China&#8217;s strengths in medical industries and technology to achieve leapfrog development.
Another potential breakthrough lies in the decoding of neural activity. China has extensive resources in clinical research and data accumulation. With the launch of upcoming major national projects, progress in brain information decoding is expected to accelerate, paving the way for new advancements in BCI technology.
Question: If we gather enough brain data, is it possible to build a general brain model similar to ChatGPT?
Wang Shouyan: Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have indeed provided us with significant inspiration. However, this question should be approached from two perspectives: the problem and the methodology. While LLMs offer a promising approach for understanding and decoding brain information, they are not the sole solution to the problem.
Although large data-driven models are disruptive and innovative, helping us better interpret and analyze brain data, relying solely on one approach in brain science research often leads to bottlenecks. Therefore, we advocate for a research paradigm that combines mechanisms and methodologies. For instance, optogenetics can help us better understand specific neural phenomena.
Currently, we are conducting research on integrating LLMs with large-scale EEG data modeling. The critical question is whether these models can genuinely help us address fundamental scientific questions. The future direction is likely to involve the convergence of data, mechanisms, and modeling. The ultimate value and significance of this technical approach depend on its ability to solve major scientific challenges.
Question: What research question are you most focused on?
Wang Shouyan: My primary focus is on how to effectively model under limited data conditions. In hospital-based research, we often cannot collect sufficient large-scale datasets, particularly when studying specific diseases. For example, in implantable device research, studies involving dozens of patients are already considered substantial, while those with over a hundred patients are extremely rare.
Does this mean that patients in such circumstances should not be studied? Or that they do not deserve treatment? These questions are not only scientific but also philosophical in nature. We must explore how to conduct effective research with limited data. Specifically, we are currently focused on leveraging large language models (LLMs) for precise modeling with small datasets. This approach aims to develop more personalized and intelligent strategies for neural modulation and brain-computer interaction.
Question: Are there valuable research cases in the application of small data?
Wang Shouyan: I can share some examples from our research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson’s disease. In China, over 100 hospitals are now offering this treatment, and tens of thousands of patients undergo this surgery every year. However, there are still hundreds of thousands of patients who need treatment, but only a small fraction have access to it. Our current focus is on how to use more precise neural modulation technologies to help a broader range of patients, especially those with significantly varied symptoms, benefit from treatment.
Additionally, we are collaborating with Huashan Hospital and Tiantan Hospital to study chronic pain patients. This includes those who have no effective pharmaceutical treatments or even patients in a vegetative state. Our goal is to use disruptive technologies to help these patients reconnect and communicate with their families. The core of these studies is leveraging small datasets to develop more precise and effective treatments.
Question: What challenges and difficulties do you see in the development of the Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) field?
Wang Shouyan: One of the biggest challenges in the broader scientific research landscape is interdisciplinary collaboration. Currently, China’s research evaluation system, with its emphasis on publishing papers and securing funding, often creates conflicts of interest. Consequently, institutional and systemic issues, particularly barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration, pose significant difficulties.
The root of these barriers lies in a value assessment system historically driven by metrics such as the number of publications and performance indicators. Researchers tend to focus on their specialized fields and are often reluctant to engage deeply with experts from other disciplines. Additionally, issues related to data sharing, especially disputes over authorship, frequently complicate collaborations. These evaluation criteria not only affect the publication of scientific results but also directly impact researchers&#8217; year-end bonuses and personal assessments.
We are currently advocating for institutional innovation in the BCI field to break down these barriers. Chinese researchers are highly intelligent and hardworking, but overcoming these remaining challenges requires addressing systemic issues and establishing efficient collaborative teams. Adequate funding support and the creation of interdisciplinary platforms are essential. Other technical challenges can be resolved gradually in accordance with the natural progression of scientific development. Interdisciplinary collaboration is not an insurmountable scientific problem; instead, institutional obstacles represent the real bottleneck.
Question: What advice would you give to young scientists?
Wang Shouyan: BCI is a highly interdisciplinary field, making a broad knowledge base and the establishment of collaborative networks especially important. For young scientists, I have a few straightforward suggestions. First, read extensively and learn continuously. The old saying “read ten thousand books and travel ten thousand miles” remains relevant. Young scholars should visit and learn from different laboratories to broaden their horizons. Second, make friends and actively participate in academic conferences. Don’t hesitate to ask questions and engage in discussions during these events.
For students and postdoctoral researchers in the BCI field, stepping out of their narrow research focus is particularly critical. Understanding the scientific questions that other researchers are exploring will help them gain a broader perspective and achieve greater heights, ultimately making their work more forward-looking and practically meaningful. I hope everyone can gain something valuable from this process. Thank you.
<div style/>

[:en]<div style="line-height: 1.5;">
Foreword

With the rapid advancement of technology, Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), serving as a vital bridge between the human brain and external devices, have progressively emerged as a research hotspot in neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Researchers worldwide are actively exploring innovations in this cutting-edge field, striving to overcome technical bottlenecks and enable smarter, more efficient human-machine interactions.

In this exclusive interview, we are honored to have Professor Wang Shouyan, Director of the Center for Neural Modulation and Brain-Computer Interface Research at Fudan University. Professor Wang provides an in-depth analysis of the current state, development advantages, and future trends of BCI research in China. He also shares forward-looking insights and invaluable experiences from his work in the field.

The following is the interview with Professor Wang Shouyan. We have condensed the text to make it easier to read.

Question: What is the current state of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) development in China?

Wang Shouyan: I am from the Institute of Brain-Inspired Intelligence Science and Technology at Fudan University and am responsible for establishing the Center for Neural Modulation and Brain-Computer Interface Research. First, I’d like to thank you for organizing this interview, which provides an opportunity to help the public better understand the true meaning, development status, and key contributors of BCI, rather than focusing solely on Musk’s promotional activities.

In fact, BCI research extends far beyond Musk’s endeavors. Recently, I proposed a four-stage developmental roadmap for BCIs*: (1) Brain Reading, (2) Brain Writing, (3) Brain-Computer Interaction, and (4) Brain-Intelligence Integration. This roadmap encompasses processes from basic signal decoding to advanced human-machine interaction. Currently, research is largely focused on decoding brain signals, a field in which both Musk and Tsinghua University in China are actively engaged.

*Professor Wang emphasizes that the scientific development of BCI will follow four phases: from Brain Reading (decoding motor, speech, memory, and consciousness) to the currently thriving field of Brain Writing (neural function modulation and reconstruction) and Brain-Computer Interaction (brain interfacing), eventually reaching Brain-Intelligence Integration (brain-inspired intelligence and digital life).

From the perspective of decoding brain signals, could using MRI scans also count as “Brain Reading”? International studies have already employed MRI and magnetoencephalography to analyze brain functions, which represents one direction of BCI research. Simultaneously, techniques such as electromagnetic stimulation are being explored to regulate brain activity.

The essence of BCI lies in achieving two-way information exchange between the human brain and external machines. We aim to enable this interaction through more intelligent means, such as using virtual reality to modulate brain activity. Therefore, I proposed BCI 3.0 (Brain-Computer Interaction), which emphasizes deep interaction and integration between the human brain and machines. The more advanced BCI 4.0 (Brain-Intelligence Integration) focuses on the coexistence and collaboration between human brains, intelligent agents, artificial intelligence, and future intelligent societies.

In these research directions, many Chinese neuroscientists, engineers, and physicians are actively exploring. For example, Huashan Hospital and Tiantan Hospital have achieved significant progress in this field.

In addition, we must strengthen science communication. The public needs to recognize the importance of BCI and the national commitment to its development. Relying solely on Musk’s research cannot represent the strategic development of a country. True strategic development involves core foundational technologies, which have profound implications for the health and well-being of society and its people.

Overall, BCI is advancing by integrating multiple factors, driving societal progress, forming the prototype of future industries, and becoming a vital part of national strategic planning.

Question: What are the advantages of China’s BCI development?

Wang Shouyan: First, we have a significant international advantage in terms of talent and disciplinary foundation. China’s BCI research began in the 1980s, and after decades of accumulated experience, we now possess a wealth of experience in BCI research, constituting a major strength.

Second, China has a solid foundation in medical and neurological disease research, which provides essential support for BCI development. We can leverage this foundation to make advances in the medical applications of BCI technologies.

Third, we have a long-standing foundation in technological development, particularly in scientific research and engineering technologies related to BCI, laying a solid groundwork for future progress.

However, we also face challenges, particularly in the integration of interdisciplinary research. We need to enhance collaboration among experts from various fields to jointly address major scientific, technological, and industrial challenges. Both the central government and the Shanghai government are actively planning and addressing these issues to further drive the development of BCIs.

Question: What breakthrough discoveries do you foresee in the field of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) over the next 5 to 10 years?

Wang Shouyan: The future breakthroughs in BCIs are likely to focus on several key areas. First, significant advancements have been made by researchers at ETH Zurich in spinal cord rehabilitation*, particularly in technologies that enable paraplegic patients to walk again. This represents a cutting-edge direction where artificial intelligence intersects with BCIs. Additionally, the integration of brain-reading and brain-writing technologies, especially innovations in deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease and pain management, is currently a major focus of international research in both basic science and clinical medicine.

*In China, the team led by Jia Fumin at Fudan University's Institute of Brain-Inspired Intelligence Science and Technology has developed a new generation of implantable brain-spinal interface devices for patients with spinal cord injuries. This innovation won the 2024 National Disruptive Technology Innovation Competition and is expected to undergo its first clinical trial by the end of the year, offering hope for spinal cord injury patients to stand and walk again.

These breakthroughs are not accidental; they are driven by profound underlying forces. By analyzing these driving forces, we can anticipate future trends. China’s early brain initiatives strategically invested in critical technologies such as neural modulation and BCIs, laying a strong foundation for future technological breakthroughs.

One clear trend from these initiatives is the move toward intelligent implantable deep brain stimulation technologies. The national strategic goal is to achieve a leading position in global competition, leveraging China's strengths in medical industries and technology to achieve leapfrog development.

Another potential breakthrough lies in the decoding of neural activity. China has extensive resources in clinical research and data accumulation. With the launch of upcoming major national projects, progress in brain information decoding is expected to accelerate, paving the way for new advancements in BCI technology.

Question: If we gather enough brain data, is it possible to build a general brain model similar to ChatGPT?

Wang Shouyan: Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have indeed provided us with significant inspiration. However, this question should be approached from two perspectives: the problem and the methodology. While LLMs offer a promising approach for understanding and decoding brain information, they are not the sole solution to the problem.

Although large data-driven models are disruptive and innovative, helping us better interpret and analyze brain data, relying solely on one approach in brain science research often leads to bottlenecks. Therefore, we advocate for a research paradigm that combines mechanisms and methodologies. For instance, optogenetics can help us better understand specific neural phenomena.

Currently, we are conducting research on integrating LLMs with large-scale EEG data modeling. The critical question is whether these models can genuinely help us address fundamental scientific questions. The future direction is likely to involve the convergence of data, mechanisms, and modeling. The ultimate value and significance of this technical approach depend on its ability to solve major scientific challenges.

Question: What research question are you most focused on?

Wang Shouyan: My primary focus is on how to effectively model under limited data conditions. In hospital-based research, we often cannot collect sufficient large-scale datasets, particularly when studying specific diseases. For example, in implantable device research, studies involving dozens of patients are already considered substantial, while those with over a hundred patients are extremely rare.

Does this mean that patients in such circumstances should not be studied? Or that they do not deserve treatment? These questions are not only scientific but also philosophical in nature. We must explore how to conduct effective research with limited data. Specifically, we are currently focused on leveraging large language models (LLMs) for precise modeling with small datasets. This approach aims to develop more personalized and intelligent strategies for neural modulation and brain-computer interaction.


Question: Are there valuable research cases in the application of small data?

Wang Shouyan: I can share some examples from our research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson’s disease. In China, over 100 hospitals are now offering this treatment, and tens of thousands of patients undergo this surgery every year. However, there are still hundreds of thousands of patients who need treatment, but only a small fraction have access to it. Our current focus is on how to use more precise neural modulation technologies to help a broader range of patients, especially those with significantly varied symptoms, benefit from treatment.

Additionally, we are collaborating with Huashan Hospital and Tiantan Hospital to study chronic pain patients. This includes those who have no effective pharmaceutical treatments or even patients in a vegetative state. Our goal is to use disruptive technologies to help these patients reconnect and communicate with their families. The core of these studies is leveraging small datasets to develop more precise and effective treatments.

Question: What challenges and difficulties do you see in the development of the Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) field?

Wang Shouyan: One of the biggest challenges in the broader scientific research landscape is interdisciplinary collaboration. Currently, China’s research evaluation system, with its emphasis on publishing papers and securing funding, often creates conflicts of interest. Consequently, institutional and systemic issues, particularly barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration, pose significant difficulties.

The root of these barriers lies in a value assessment system historically driven by metrics such as the number of publications and performance indicators. Researchers tend to focus on their specialized fields and are often reluctant to engage deeply with experts from other disciplines. Additionally, issues related to data sharing, especially disputes over authorship, frequently complicate collaborations. These evaluation criteria not only affect the publication of scientific results but also directly impact researchers' year-end bonuses and personal assessments.

We are currently advocating for institutional innovation in the BCI field to break down these barriers. Chinese researchers are highly intelligent and hardworking, but overcoming these remaining challenges requires addressing systemic issues and establishing efficient collaborative teams. Adequate funding support and the creation of interdisciplinary platforms are essential. Other technical challenges can be resolved gradually in accordance with the natural progression of scientific development. Interdisciplinary collaboration is not an insurmountable scientific problem; instead, institutional obstacles represent the real bottleneck.

Question: What advice would you give to young scientists?

Wang Shouyan: BCI is a highly interdisciplinary field, making a broad knowledge base and the establishment of collaborative networks especially important. For young scientists, I have a few straightforward suggestions. First, read extensively and learn continuously. The old saying “read ten thousand books and travel ten thousand miles” remains relevant. Young scholars should visit and learn from different laboratories to broaden their horizons. Second, make friends and actively participate in academic conferences. Don’t hesitate to ask questions and engage in discussions during these events.

For students and postdoctoral researchers in the BCI field, stepping out of their narrow research focus is particularly critical. Understanding the scientific questions that other researchers are exploring will help them gain a broader perspective and achieve greater heights, ultimately making their work more forward-looking and practically meaningful. I hope everyone can gain something valuable from this process. Thank you.
<div style/>[:]

Interview with Prof. Wang Shouyan: Do We Need Large Models or Small Models for Brain-Computer Interfaces?

[:en]Interview with Prof. Wang Shouyan: Do We Need Large Models or Small Models for Brain-Computer Interfaces?[:]

Interview with Prof. Moritz Helmstaedter: The decade-long debate has concluded, Has the European Brain Project failed?

[:en]Interview with Prof. Moritz Helmstaedter: The decade-long debate has concluded, Has the European Brain Project failed?[:zh]十年争议落幕，欧洲脑计划失败了吗？｜追问专访·Moritz Helmstaedter[:]

Interview with Professor Si Wu: Unlocking the "Door of Wisdom" in Artificial Intelligence

[:en]Interview with Professor Si Wu: Unlocking the "Door of Wisdom" in Artificial Intelligence[:zh]吴思：打开人工智能的“智慧之门”[:]

Interview with Prof. Wang Xiaojing: Fostering interdisciplinary talents for computational neuroscience

[:en]Interview with Prof. Wang Xiaojing: Fostering interdisciplinary talents for computational neuroscience[:zh] 汪小京 · 为计算神经科学培养跨学科人才[:]

rectangle-68

Rectangle 68

NextQuestion Interviews

rectangle-63-1

Rectangle 63 (1)

nq_social_banner_en_112823

NQ_Social_Banner_EN_112823

Observations

How Does the Large Language Model Proclaim the Death of Psychology?

[:en]How Does the Large Language Model Proclaim the Death of Psychology?[:zh]万字长文，大语言模型如何宣告心理学的死亡?[:]

Why does the brain play a single song on a loop? 
Can listening to more music improve children's cognition?

Who Are the “Behind-the-Scenes” Controllers of AI-Simulated Societies?

Top Ten Advances in Artificial Intelligence in 2024

Top Ten Advances in Neuropsychiatric Research in 2024

Top Ten Advances in Brain Science in 2024

Interview with Ji Haiqing: How Do We Define “Human” in the Context of Brain-Machine Interfaces?

NextQuestion Observations

Who Are the “Behind-the-Scenes” Controllers of AI-Simulated Societies?

Top Ten Advances in Artificial Intelligence in 2024

Top Ten Advances in Neuropsychiatric Research in 2024

Top Ten Advances in Brain Science in 2024

How Does the Large Language Model Proclaim the Death of Psychology?

Interview with Prof. Moritz Helmstaedter: The decade-long debate has concluded, Has the European Brain Project failed?

Follow NextQuestion