The man in question was paralyzed from the shoulders down in a diving accident. He is highly intelligent and can now play chess and Civilizations with others online. But he admits there are still a lot of kinks to work out of the system.
It has made his life (from his perspective) a lot better than it was. And I think his volunteering to be a test subject for this technology makes sense from his perspective. In my view, it is another example of how few (if any) technologies are evil in and of themselves.
The evil part will come in (if it does) when, after only testing for a year or three, this is expanding from helping the paralyzed or locked-in syndrome communicate and have some quality of life (primarily online). This man can take it, which is helpful for early feedback. Still, I suspect the next few volunteers may be more like the late Stephen Hawking and can only talk using advanced technological assistance.
Now, in a sane world, a couple of hundred people in similar conditions would be voluntary test subjects and be followed for at least five, preferably ten to twenty years, before using it on non-disabled (or less disabled) people. To learn things like the long-term effects on the brain, the chances of rejection, the chances of injuries or other problems from the surgery. What changes occur in the brain when being "wired in" like this? How long do the implants last?
But that won't happen (or at least it isn't likely). Within a year or two, I'm pretty sure this will be the "new" Ozempec, or at least that is how it will be monitored. Even without the possibility of the "two-way" street—aka Musk (or the government) now controls YOU—the odds of the mass implanting of "Brain Chips" in the population are scary as hell. When you add in the two-way street aspects, it becomes positively dystopic.
