About the author
Here I am at the 10th BCI Meeting in Belgium in 2024. Yes, I’m in here.
New here? Think (or better yet click) here to get to our main page.
(Re) Defining BCIs by Brendan zaChary allIson
“You say you have a way to save my offshore… entity… from new laws in the European and North American Freelands outlawing retroactive and real-time data mining of any videos.”
“Right. ENAF passed a law last year excluding BCIs from new regulations for the next ten years to encourage the field to grow. I’m sure you know about them, since your offshore… entity… is developing ML algorithms to do all the same things with BCIs that you did with video recordings. Data scrambling, legal services, consulting, espionage, blackmail, other things that require you to remain… offshore.”
“You said you could help with our work with videos. News clips, records of meetings, interviews, etc.”
“Look what happened with all those videos. First you made facial recognition algorithms to identify indicators of disease. Then stress. Then lying. Then the one that could tell what you were doing with your non-mouse hand during all those online meetings people used to record.”
The CEO and his left hand paused. “That one used shoulder and arm activity too, though.”
“The point is, they had to keep expanding the laws and definitions to keep up with your new AI. So why not just expand the definition of BCIs to include all videos so the legal exception applies to you?
“Yeah, but videos aren’t BCIs. Not even close.”
“They’re interfaces between brains and computers. Your data mining uses ML, like them.”
The CEO laughed. “Is that precedented? I thought a BCI was… well, actually, I don’t exactly know.”
“Right. Nobody does anymore. The definition of BCIs has been diluted repeatedly. First they added passive BCIs. Then spinal interfaces. Then CBIs. Then those gloves that just read nerve signals to your hands so you can play games faster. Then eye-trackers. Then those new Japanese toilets that stimulate your colon. So you just need to publish one paper under a Legal AI Moniker so they don’t know it’s you or anyone associated with your offshore… entity. Now you have a precedent. Flood the net with LAIMs who agree. Plug the new definition like a gift from St. Nick. Ram. See? Force the expanded BCI definition. Push hard. Get nasty. You’re… offshore… so you can do anything.”
“But there have to be a few of those effete academics who had enough of ENAF’s redefinitions.”
“Ignore them. Same as before. They’ll argue, have symposia, try to be open-minded, grow the field, avoid excluding anyone, meanwhile ignore the new law and claim the BCI exception. Have your LAIMs keep saying it’s a big contribution to society. Soon all is fauxrgiven except a few frustrated nerds. Once again, your offshore… entity… can ignore ENAF laws just like they don’t even exist.”
“Right. Thanks for the legal advice, and reminder.” The CEO moved his left hand again and his interviewee vanished.
Author Commentary
Andy Weir said he didn’t like stories with an axe to grind. That’s what this one is. It’s one I can reference later with an I told you so.
This is one of my worst BCI-fi short-shorts, which is why I buried it near the bottom of the list. It’s not so much a story but a warning about the dangers of diluting and polluting the definition of BCIs. The comment about not excluding anyone was from an argument with Nick Ramsey. He said we don’t want to make people feel excluded from our conferences. I said yes we do – people who work on things that aren’t BCIs.
Realism
This was the title of a paper I wrote about 15 years ago. I brought it to the attention of my new boss, Prof. Pfurtscheller, to ask for his permission to submit it. He said only if he could be first author – even though I already wrote it. I said no. Same deal with my hybrid BCIs paper, which was published in 2010 (Pfurtscheller et al., 2010). Yup, I also wrote that paper before I started working at Graz. Ask people who worked for Pfurtscheller about his tendency to do such things.
Will there be offshore entities like these? Probably not.
The metaphorical realism is quite apparent already. The established, canonical definition of BCI was burst open about 15 years ago with the addition of “passive BCIs,” which had in fact been developed long before my friend Thorsten Zander’s paper. Lots of people want to claim they’re working on BCIs. What’s to stop it from happening again?
Hope
Among many of us in BCI-land, this is bleak. To most healthy people, the definition of a BCI = minutiae.
Edit History
I wrote this in Feb 2024 in reply to the survey from the BCI Society about broadening the definition of BCIs. I posted it in the BCI Society Discord server.
UPDATE (Jun 2025): The title of this article was also the title of a poster I presented at the BCI Meeting in Banff last week.
Comments and Replies
You could be the first person to comment here!
bcifi 
Leave a Reply! BCI-based commenting is not yet enabled :)