脳とコンピュータの結合（Brain Computer Interface）
こんにちは、丸山満彦です。
イーロン・マスク氏が2016年に創業した米Neuralink社が昨年披露したチップより大幅に改良された「LINK VO.9」（以下「LINK」）、LINKを脳に移植するための外科用ロボット、既にLINKを埋め込んだブタによるデモを披露し、話題になっていますね。。。
● IT Media
・2020.08.30 イーロン・マスクのNeuralink、脳埋め込みチップのブタでのデモで進捗報告
この記事によると、LINKは、7月に米食品医薬品局（FDA）のBreakthrough Devices Programの認定を受けていて、人間への移植準備はほぼできており、安全性のテストを重ねて許可を待っている状態のようですね。
さて、このような技術は、Brain Machine Interface (BMI)とか、Brain Computer Interface (BCI)とか言われていますが、こういう研究を一番進めているのは、米軍なんでしょうかね。。。
さて、米国ではこの発表の1日前の2020.08.27にRand研究所[wikipedia]からBCIに関する報告書が公表されています。どのような場面で活用ができそうかという話は当然として、潜在的なリスク（Potencial Risks）にも相当触れられていますね。。。
・2020.08.27 (article) Brain-Computer Interfaces Are Coming. Will We Be Ready?
・2020.08.27 (report) Brain-Computer Interfaces - U.S. Military Applications and Implications, An Initial Assessment - by Anika Binnendijk, Timothy Marler, Elizabeth M. Bartels
・本文[Online] [PDF] [Downloaded]
目次は次の通り
Summary
Introduction
Human-Machine Teaming
Approach
Technology Summary
Introduction
Review
Development Directions and Technical Challenges
Development Directions
Technical Challenges and Risks
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
BCI and the Future Warfighter
Potential BCI Applications in Future Combat
Existing Concepts for BCI Combat Applications
TESTING BCI CAPABILITIES THROUGH NATIONAL SECURITY GAMING
A Projected BCI Toolbox
Testing the Operational Relevance of BCI Capabilities
Insights on the Use of BCI from Game Play
Vignette 1: Clearing a Building
Vignette 2: Ambush and Casualty Evacuation
Additional Use Cases
Summary of Game Findings
POTENTIAL RISKS
Operational Vulnerabilities
New Potential Points of Failure
Adversary Access to New Information
New Areas of Exposure to Harm or Influence
Institutional Vulnerabilities
Trust
Erosion of Unit Cohesion
Erosion of Unit Leadership
Ethical and Legal Risks
Responsibility to the BCI Operator
Responsibility of the BCI Operator
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary and Primary Findings
Recommendations
Expand Analyses to Illuminate Operational Relevance and Vulnerabilities
Address the Trust Deficit
Collaborate and Anticipate
Plan Ahead for BCI Institutional Implications
APPENDIX. GAME DESIGN AND EXECUTION
Vignette Selection
Game Process
NOTES
REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
報道等
● Braking Defense
・2020.08.27 DoD Needs New Policies, Ethics For Brain-Computer Links (Jacked-In Troops?) By THERESA HITCHENS
"BCI is not just science fiction; it has viable practical applications, but there is much more work that needs to be completed before it becomes mainstream and commercial," RAND's Tim Marler says.
Summary
Brain-computer interface (BCI) represents an emerg-ing and potentially disruptive area of technology that, to date, has received minimal public discussion in the defense and national security policy commu-nities. This research considered key areas in which future BCI technologies might be relevant for the warfighters of tomorrow. It sought to explore the operational value of current and future developments regarding man-machine neural communication, the associated vulnerabilities and risks, and the policy levers that should be in place before the technology is deployed.
The project drew from reviews of relevant tech-nical and security literature and discussions with subject-matter experts to develop a July 2018 game convening technical and operational experts. The game tested the potential utility of a functional “BCI toolbox” against two future tactical urban operations vignettes. Game results indicated that BCI tech-nologies are likely to have practical use on a future battlefield, particularly as the pace and volume of human-machine interaction intensify. Within the vignettes, participants anticipated that BCI capa-bilities could enhance the speed of communication, improve common situational awareness, and allow operators to control multiple technological platforms simultaneously. Participants noted that the pragmatic utility of each BCI capability would depend largely on its fidelity and reliability during combat. Of the capa-bilities assessed in the game, direct brain-to -brain communication facilitated by BCI appeared to offer the most transformative applications for operational use but also carried the most significant operational and institutional risks.
Our analysis also explored possible areas of risk associated with the development and application of BCI combat capabilities. As with many new techno - logical developments, BCI may create new military operational vulnerabilities, new areas of ethical and legal risk, and potentially profound implications for existing military organizational structures. In particular, the report highlights potential operational vulnerabilities associated with the development and adoption of BCI technologies by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), including the potential for new points of failure, adversary access to new informa-tion, and new areas of exposure to harm or avenues of influence of service members. It also underscores institutional vulnerabilities that may arise, includ-ing challenges surrounding a deficit of trust in BCI technologies, as well as the potential erosion of unit cohesion, unit leadership, and other critical inter-personal military relationships. Finally, we consider potential future U.S. government ethical and legal responsibilities to an individual BCI operator, as well as the implications that BCI technologies might have on the ethical and legal responsibilities of that indi-vidual. These considerations should be incorporated into research and development (R&D) efforts early in the process and may warrant dedicated a depart-mentwide oversight mechanism as the technologies continue to mature.
Overall, our findings suggest that as the U.S. mil-itary increasingly incorporates artificial intelligence (AI) and semiautonomous systems into its opera-tions, BCI could offer an important means to expand and improve human-machine teaming. However, precautions will need to be taken to mitigate vul-nerabilities to DoD operations and institutions and to reduce potential ethical and legal risks associated with DoD’s development and adoption of BCI tech-nologies. Specifically, we recommend that DoD
- expand analysis to illuminate operational relevance and risks. This research developed a systematic approach to evaluating potential operational applications of BCI by pairing operational experience with technological expertise and incorporating a disruptive and creative Red team of RAND Corporation experts. New analytical approaches such as this could supplement existing internal exer-cises to help ensure that operational needs and risks, rather than just technical opportuni-ties, drive BCI development and identify new adversary threats.
- address the trust deficit. The game and associated research highlighted the extent to which cultural barriers to BCI, particularly among infantry service members, are likely to be high. Trust barriers could be miti-gated through heavy vetting and testing in noncombat scenarios, introduction to service members that already rely on machine tech-nologies, and an initial focus on noninvasive measures and medical applications.
- collaborate and anticipate. Our research highlighted examples of where DoD seed funding yielded successful BCI break-throughs, and examples of emerging private-sector innovation. Where possi-ble, future collaboration could leverage private-sector advances to the benefit of the U.S. military and, if carefully pursued, could improve trust gaps within the military. As the commercial market develops BCI technol-ogies, this will help establish its capabilities and shortcomings. Although BCI applications are currently still in the basic-research phase, development of other technologies by the military, including robotics, AI, and big data analysis, will need to consider the eventual availability of BCI.
- plan ahead for institutional implications. As the U.S. government prepares to incorporate BCI technologies into future military capabili-ties, it will require institutional innovations to address new ethical and policy issues at each stage of the process, from R&D to operational application to veteran care.
Introduction
The 86 billion neurons of the human brain represent humankind’s primary evolutionary advantage and, perhaps, an area of untapped potential. Currently, our brains interact with the world through our bod-ies, sending electrical currents through the nervous system to vocalize with our mouths, to type—or swipe—with our fingers, or to move bipedally through space. What will happen when human brains are freed of their corporeal confines and can control machines directly? Neurotechnological advances have already given quadriplegics the ability to perform basic operations in an F-35 simulator with their thoughts1 and have given scientists the ability to decode speech that subjects are imagining in their minds—albeit imperfectly. Eventually, our physical bodies might become a constraint that could be cir-cumvented with appropriate neurotechnology.2 The technical means for this brain-body bypass are BCIs, defined as methods and systems for providing a direct communication pathway between an enhanced or wired brain and an external device, with bidi-rectional information flow (between the brain and a device).3 Their potential impact is broad and far reaching, and policies on how to develop and manage such technology should be proactive, not reactive.
BCI technology is progressing. Such progress highlights the need to assess current and poten-tial applications, and to ensure that the technology responds to actual needs in addition to the intentions of developers. As BCI transitions from basic research to more operational and commercial applications, it will be important to devote early attention to the broader implications, to consider what policies and guidelines might maximize its benefits while mitigat-ing potential downsides. Developing such technolo-gies as AI, data analytics, and robotics have captured headlines and fostered public discussion regarding potential benefits and risks. Limited comparable conversation has, as of yet, evolved for BCI. When compared to other prominent emerging technologies, BCI is relatively immature; few capabilities have been deployed commercially. However, it has the potential to be no less influential. With profound potential implications in fields from defense and national security to health and wellness, BCI may represent a highly disruptive technology that, to date, has received insufficient analysis.
This report offers an initial assessment of what viable applications BCI may have in U.S. military operations, and what risks and vulnerabilities may be associated with its development and deployment. The authors describe the current state of the art and possible areas of technology development and growth for BCI military applications and investigate key questions associated with the use of BCI capabilities in a future combat scenario. Fundamentally, we ask,
(1) what is the potential operational significance of current and future developments regarding BCI, and
(2) what are the policy considerations necessary for effective management of the technology with an understanding of its potential impact on the warf-ighter of the future?
Human-Machine Teaming
The research views BCI in the context of the antic-ipated future of warfare, including increases in human-machine teaming. The analysis begins from the premise that human-machine teaming will play a major role in future combat and that BCI may provide a competitive advantage in future warfare. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, who led DoD’s 3rd offset, a catalyst for defense-sector technology development focused on human-machine teaming, summarized trends with military technol-ogy as follows:
The coin of the realm during the Cold War was armored brigades, mechanized infan-try brigades, multiple launch rocket system battalions, self-propelled artillery battalions, tactical fighter squadrons, among others. Now, the coin of the realm is going to be learning machines and human-machine collaborations, which allows machines to allow humans to make better decisions; assisted human opera-tions, which means bringing the power of the network to the individual; human-machine combat teaming; and the autonomous network.4
Although DoD R&D efforts include many dimensions of technology, certain aspects are particularly relevant to potential work with BCI. In particular, there is an increasing focus on human-machine collaboration for improved deci-sionmaking, including human-computer interac-tion (HCI) and cognitive teaming, assisted-human operations, and advanced manned and unmanned combat teaming.5 Defense officials discussing the “centaur” model—collaborative human and AI teams—have highlighted the relative advantages of the U.S. civilian and military workforce in develop-ing and operating human-machine teaming technol-ogies.6 Human-machine teaming technologies that effectively leverage the unique cultural strengths of the American warfighter, including critical think-ing and creative problem-solving, represent an area of particular value to the future U.S. military.7 Technology development programs within DoD have thus focused on human-machine collaboration.8 In fact, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has suggested that “smart systems will significantly impact how our troops operate in the future, and now is the time to be thinking about what human-machine teaming will actually look like and how it might be accomplished. . . .”9
Future developments with human-machine teaming have the potential to prompt far-reaching defense policy debates.10 Technological advances, such as BCI, that allow humans to connect increas-ingly closely with machines on the battlefield may yield fundamental strategic and operational changes within each of the U.S. service branches and will undoubtedly raise ethical and organiza-tional questions across the U.S. defense community. Thus, as DoD pursues a forward-looking vision for human-machine teaming, ambitious planning should prompt similarly far-reaching defense policy debates.11
In preparation for a future world in which human-machine teams represent the “coin of the realm,” DoD has already invested in the development of technologies that can permit the human brain to communicate directly with machines, including the development of implantable neural interfaces that are capable of transferring data between the human brain and the digital world.12 On the future battle-field, human thoughts may well be channeled to AI software or to robots, with information transferred back from sensors and machines directly to the human brain.13 Ultimately, humans and machines could collaborate cognitively and seamlessly—to think together.
Approach
This analysis is structured to explore the operational implications of BCI technology. It pilots a repeatable process for systematically exploring the relevance and implications of emerging technologies in the context of military operations. Mapping techno-logical capabilities to practical applications—and understanding not just the state of the art but the state of the practical uses—can present a significant challenge for assessments of emerging technology. Our process addresses that challenge by parsing the technology into operationally relevant capabilities, testing their operational relevance with a table-top exercise (TTX), and then exploring implications, risks, and risk-mitigation strategies. The process is itemized as follows:
- Through literature review and discussions with subject-matter experts, we summarize the technology and identify key areas of devel-opmental effort.
- Specific topics of technology development are used as a catalyst for discussions with military experts to identify potential military applica-tions in theater.
- We aggregate the results of the analysis concerning technology development and operational relevance to provide a general assessment of whether BCI could potentially be valuable in a military setting and, if so, how. This preliminary finding becomes the overarching guide for a TTX.
- Based on the technical and operational assessments, we derive a set of projected BCI capabilities—a future BCI toolbox.
- The BCI toolbox is used in a table-top game based on exemplary scenarios involving tactical urban operations. This game explores more extensively the anticipated viability and relevance of BCI in theater.
- Throughout this process, we explore vulner-abilities, risks, and risk-mitigation strategies associated with BCIs across three dimensions: technological, institutional, and legal/ethical.
Potential Risks
[html]
Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary and Primary Findings
Former Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has observed that while “the accelerating pace of innova-tion is already bringing great progress . . . it would be foolish to let inertia set the agenda.”155 As an example, BCI technologies, developed in part by DoD funding, have advanced significantly in recent years and are likely to continue to progress, whether under govern-ment, academic, or private-sector auspices. The U.S. government thus has an opportunity to play a con-structive role in the coming decades in supporting elements of BCI technology that benefit U.S. national security and seeking to mitigate risks.
This report has provided an initial evaluation of the potential applications of BCI in a military setting and has highlighted potential policy issues that should be addressed. Our analysis and game prototype contributed to nascent discussions on the extent to which BCI technologies might open up new areas of operational risk during combat. Our work also considered how an evolving relationship between humans and machines, facilitated by BCI, might profoundly alter existing military organizational structures and relationships and pose new ethical and legal challenges for DoD.In addition to considering policy issues and the potential tactical value of BCI, this research yielded a systematic approach to exploring the implications of emerging technology. This approach, which incorpo - rated technology review, operational considerations, and technology deconstruction (into a set of practical capabilities) into a TTX for testing in-theater impli-cations, is scalable and can be applied to a variety of emerging technologies.
Our game and associated research indicated that despite valid concerns, BCI can likely be useful for future military operations, even in the most difficult test case: infantry ground force combat. This utility may become particularly pronounced once tech-nology for military applications of AI and robotics develops further, and once adversaries have access to these capabilities. Nonetheless, the application of BCI would support ongoing DoD technological initia-tives, including human-machine collaboration for improved decisionmaking, assisted-human opera-tions, and advanced manned and unmanned combat teaming.
Of course, as with most significant technological advances, there are potential risks. BCI falls subject to the capability-vulnerability paradox, with coun-terweighted benefits and risks, and, as development efforts and eventual acquisition efforts progress, requirements will need to account for such risks. Cybersecurity will be a significant risk going for-ward, amplified by the use of BCI. Because cyber-networks touch nearly all dimensions of BCI, further development of BCI capabilities will have to integrate with associated cybersecurity measures. Our game insights suggested that, while human-to -human communication had the highest reward and greatest number of opportunities for use, it also presented the greatest operational and organizational risks. Risks will depend on whether this capability can be turned on and off and used selectively. The game highlighted a few ideas to mitigate operational risks, including potential use of EW shielding integrated into armor, secure networks, and steps to ensure that traditional backup methods are preserved.
Recommendations
Moving forward, we recommend that the U.S. gov-ernment conduct additional national security gaming to further assess the operational risks and benefits of BCI technology in combat, including provisions for additional domains and contingencies. Beyond oper-ational risks, the government will need to address a potential lack of trust in BCI technologies, which is an issue that emerged during the game as a poten-tial impediment to adoption by the armed services. This, in turn, requires special attention to how BCI is deployed as it matures. Our review of current techno-logical progress highlighted work done in academic and private-sector laboratories, and the U.S. govern-ment should seek to leverage work in both, especially as the commercial sector increasingly dominates technology R&D. Developing and deploying BCI technologies in the national security sector will require institutional adaptation to operators at each stage of the process. Next, we offer some concluding suggestions on each of these points.
Expand Analyses to Illuminate Operational Relevance and Vulnerabilities
Over the coming decades, it will be critical that oper-ational needs and risks, rather than just technical opportunities, drive BCI development. To help sup-port this need, we developed a systematic approach to evaluating the potential operational applications of BCI and other over-the-horizon military technol-ogies. During the TTX testing, pairing of operational experience with technological expertise yielded rigor-ous and fruitful discussions, and this process should be replicated on a larger scale. These approaches could supplement existing internal exercises, such as the Marine Corps Advanced Naval Technology Exercise, to explore the practical utility of BCI and other prospective technologies to future warfighters.
By incorporating a disruptive and creative Red team of RAND experts, the game also highlighted potential new areas of operational vulnerability, as well as initial ideas to mitigate them. As the U.S. government seeks to build resilience from early phases of BCI development, similar methods could help to unearth the full range of adversary threats. Beyond BCI, the approaches developed in this pilot project are scalable and could be applied to a variety of emerging technologies.
It is important to consider ethical and policy issues before emerging technologies mature and are disseminated.
Address the Trust Deficit
One major theme to emerge from the study was that cultural barriers to BCI, particularly among infan-try service members, are likely to be high, and this is a common theme with many new and emerging technologies. These barriers can be mitigated with the following steps.
As BCI capabilities are integrated into the force, they may initially be more readily accepted among service members who already rely heavily on machine technologies, and who experience greater requirements for direct interaction with computers or machines.
During the R&D process in the coming decades, noninvasive measures are less likely to encounter cultural resistance. They may also be easier to reverse and control. Similarly, work on medical or thera-peutic applications may offer near-term benefit for today’s wounded warriors and is likely to encounter the least cultural resistance.
Unsurprisingly, service members are more likely to trust capabilities that have been appropriately vet-ted and tested before use. Thus, once BCI capabilities are further developed, robust testing for failure in noncombat scenarios, including training and data processing and analysis, before introducing them into combat will help to strengthen trust and reduce the potential for unanticipated risk.
Collaborate and Anticipate
Research for this project highlighted multiple examples in which DoD seed funding for BCI laboratory research yielded successes. Significant future advances may take place in the private sector, and the U.S. government should seek to leverage private-sector R&D when possible. If carefully pur-sued, private-sector advances may also improve trust gaps within the military: As the U.S. public begins to use BCI, there may be less skepticism about its use in a national security setting. As private-sector technol-ogy advances and begins to be applied to the military sphere, International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Export Administration Regulations, and other restrictions should be considered with respect to BCI. BCI intellectual property should be carefully mon-itored by DoD and the Department of Commerce during these early periods of development.
As emerging technology accelerates, it becomes increasingly important to consider integrated systems and how different technologies depend on one other. BCI could prove an important tool for integrating human-machine systems, whether by enhancing big data analysis, accelerating accurate decisionmak-ing, or improving the control of exoskeleton, drone swarms, or semiautonomous systems. However, there is a risk that the research could occur in isolation without consideration of additional and related emerging technologies. Thus, current development efforts should make provisions for the eventual avail-ability of BCI, even if its applications are currently still in the basic-research phase.
Plan Ahead for BCI Institutional Implications
As the U.S. government prepares to incorporate BCI technologies into future military capabilities, appropriate institutional planning will help to ensure a smooth rollout and execution. It is important to consider ethical and policy issues before emerging technologies mature and are disseminated.
During the research phase, it will be important to continue to integrate ethical, legal, and societal considerations into research funding. DARPA cur-rently requires that research teams conduct ethical analysis for many grants surrounding BCI. Rigorous internal analysis should continue beyond basic research throughout the development, design, and application of new BCI technologies for defense and national security use. The U.S. government should continue to implement National Academy of Sciences ethical recommendations in development and implementation, particularly regarding (1) questions of consent that are specific to service members, (2) potential health implications for invasive BCI, (3) considerations surrounding enhanced human performance, and (4) potential risks to privacy.
As BCI technologies are disseminated across national security institutions, services will want to identify clear oversight mechanisms for BCI devel-opment and application. Given the broad range of potential applications for BCI, there is significant risk of stovepiping with related R&D. A department-wide oversight mechanism, potentially residing in the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the Joint Staff, should track and review BCI developments for senior DoD approval. Once BCI is integrated into services, individual services might consider coordinated arbi-tration mechanisms outside the chain of command to allow service members and their commanding officers to discuss or object to unethical or harmful uses of BCI technology.
Finally, DoD may need to plan for a range of additional warfighter and veteran care needs after the incorporation of BCI technologies. BCI carries the potential for new dimensions of care require-ments, potentially including BCI withdrawal, brain injuries, posttraumatic stress disorder, and ongoing care for invasive devices through Veterans Affairs.
Comments