The Neurotechnology Race Has Begun—And Chile is Ahead of the Game By: Taya Lee
In the face of the US-China AI race, emerging technologies have sparked conversations around the world on regulating artificial intelligence, but those conversations are focused on the regulation of the wrong intelligence. As of August of 2025, brain computer interfaces (BCI) have advanced to the level of being able to decode an individual’s inner speech with about 74% accuracy.1 Usually when interacting with various devices, you first decide what you want to do, then use your muscles to carry out that intention, and finally, the device responds.2 Basically, BCIs compress this process by skipping the muscle coordination phase, as the interface reads your intention from brain activity, and then uses that to directly control the device, bypassing physical action entirely.3 Thus, while the average citizen is concerned about artificial intelligence usage–i.e. career implications, safety, ethics, etc.4–their own intelligence and brain activity is at risk.5
Furthermore, Pew Research Center conducted a study that demonstrated, not only how concerned the world is about AI, but also the world’s distrust of the United State and China to regulate the technology, as they are currently the world’s leaders in artificial technology.6 It follows that we would see a trend of countries establishing their own protections, as Chile proactively did in 2021.7 Chile was the first country in the world to pass legislation on neurotechnologies, and they even amended their constitution to include the term “brain rights,” also referred to as ‘neurorights,’ further establishing protections for their citizens.8 Chile’s primary goal for passing such legislation was to, “protect mental privacy, free will and non-discrimination in citizens’ access to neurotechnology.”9 They were aiming for personal brain data to have the same protections as an organ, meaning that it is prohibited from being bought, sold, trafficked, or manipulated.10
When the legislation was passed in 2021, it was believed that Chile’s promulgation of such legislation was premature,11 but now that BCIs have proven to “really help read minds” it would not be surprising if other countries follow in Chile’s footsteps and pass legislation restricting neurotechnologies and protecting neurorights.12 This is especially in light of the data collected by Pew, emphasizing the world’s citizens’ distrust of the main actors in the industry.13
Chile’s legislation breaks neurotechnologies into three categories: medical, research, and commercial, each with tailored oversight according to its specificities.14 Additionally, any applications of the technology in Chile must first be registered with Chile’s Institute of Public Health, which aids in restricting uses involving non-consensual behavior modification, exploitation of vulnerable groups, unauthorized data collection, and neurological harm to minors.15 However, Chile’s consent requirements vary by use; medical and research uses follow standard patient protocols, whereas commercial applications require explicit written informed consent before any implementation. As far as enforceability, commercial neurotechnology users are jointly and severally liable for damages to consumer, which allows injured parties to pursue lawsuits for any manufacturer, distributor, or operator. Furthermore, even the process in which Chile began drafting the legislation in a manner that that I believe other countries will follow suit. The conversation for neuro rights legislation began, at least most substantively, at an annual conference to discuss emerging technologies that was open to the general public. Such collaboration with constituents is necessary for legislating emerging technology, as it affects the general public’s daily life substantially.16
As you can see, there seems to be a concern not only with protection of neurodata, but also undesired uses of neurotechnology. One article questions, “[w]hat if BCI users end up with a device that doesn't function or, worse, makes them vulnerable to mind-reading, or even mind-control, by others?”17 Another muses on the intersection between BCIs and though surveillance, stating that this intersection meets, “[n]ot in the dystopian sense of reading free-form imagination or dreams, that’s still beyond current science. But in the far more practical sense of capturing structured mental acts without explicit intention.”18 Furthermore, once neurotechnology is inevitably developed to such an extent, there are some concerns about its usage, such as “what if a workplace BCI ‘helper’ detects when an employee’s mind wanders? What if a government claims the right to monitor rehearsed inner speech in the name of security?”19 Jason Snyder says, “[t]he slope is steep, and we’ve already taken a step.”20 Similarly, a neurobiologist by the name of Rafael Yuste stated in 2022 that ‘[w]e now know how to induce hallucinations in mice by manipulating their cerebral cortex. What we can do in mice today will be possible to do in humans tomorrow”.21 Thus, the human rights implications and ever-quickening progress of such technology demands that our world leaders be proactive rather than reactive, as experts call for restrictive legislation before bad actors can cause any real harm.22 One expert even went as far as to say that “[i]f we wait for the technology to mature, we may never be able to control it.”23
However, neurotechnology is not all bad. In fact, there are some potential uses that would prove quite productive to society. For example, for “individuals with ALS, locked-in syndrome, or severe paralysis, this [technology] is transformational. . . Being able to speak, even silently, to loved ones, caregivers, and doctors” means everything to such patients.24 Additionally, by nature of such technology, there are much more effective consent requirements than other technologies, such as facial recognition.25 Many developments of neurotechnology include a “thought keyword [to] activate the computer. Think it, and the system begins decoding your private monologue. Stop thinking it, and the system falls silent.”26 While on one hand, this seems very invasive, the “keyword unlock” actually provides further protections for individuals’ thought privacy because “[b]y requiring a deliberate mental act to open the channel, the system respects intention.”27 It can be argued that this built-in consent protects the sanctity of thought since only what is chosen to share becomes neurodata. However, I am not sure I subscribe to this notion, as the fact that the technology can hear when it is invited to read neuropatterns means it is always listening. And, even if it does not collect all of it as data–though how would we know if it does or not–the mere fact that it is capable to do so for an individual is able to speak on their own behalf is invasive enough for me.
Nevertheless, this technology is essentially unavoidable. It will be developed, and it will be utilized.28 The only line of defense is for countries to legislate neurotechnology and codify neurorights before it is widespread–or worse, ends up in the wrong hands–as Chile has done.29 Further, neurotechnologies’ advancement has progressed at an accelerating pace,30 and the absence of effective regulation in most Western democracies presents both a policy failure and a window of opportunity, especially for the United States.31 Chile's constitutional amendments and comprehensive legislative framework demonstrate that substantive neurorights protections are neither impractical nor economically prohibitive. Going beyond neurorights, the legislation demonstrates the feasibility of substantive regulations on other emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and biometric technologies. Yet, despite Chile was the first in the world to establish safeguards for neurorights in 2021, the United States has remained largely passive, offering little-to-no guidance rather than cohesive legislation, which leaves citizens vulnerable.32 Notably, China has moved decisively in the opposite direction, leveraging its Artificial Intelligence Ethics Subcommittee under the National Science and Technology Ethics Committee to issue recommendations that position it as a serious player in neurotechnology governance.33 This difference is startling but not surprising. It is crucial for world leaders to recognize that neurorights legislation is no longer a speculative concern but an urgent matter, requiring urgent action. The frameworks exist, the precedents are set, and the stakes are clear. The time for policymakers to move from observation to action is now.
1 Jason Snyder, AI Can Read Your Thoughts — The Future of Brain-Computer Interfaces, FORBES (August 31, 2025).
2 Calgary Pediatric Brain-Computer Interface Program, What is a Brain Computer Interface?, CUMMING SCHOOL OF MEDICINE (Last visited November, 23, 2025).
3 Id.
4 Jacob Poushter, et al., How People Around the World View AI, PEW RESEARCH CENTER (October 15, 2025).
5 Snyder, supra note 1.
6 Poushter, supra note 4.
7 Lorena Guzmán H., Chile: Pioneering the Protection of Neurorights, THE UNESCO COURIER (Last updated October 13, 2023).
8 See Id.; Sergio Ruiz, et. al., Neurorights in the Constitution: From Neurotechnology to Ethics and Politics, PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS RESEARCH SOCIETY (January 29, 2025).
9 Lorena Guzmán H., Chile: Pioneering the Protection of Neurorights, THE UNESCO COURIER (Last updated October 13, 2023).
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Cheng Yu, Where Free Will, Mental Privacy Inform Protection of 'Neuro Rights', CHINA DAILY (April 29, 2024) (demonstrating the author’s belief that such concerns are premature).
13 Poushter, supra note 4.
14 Sergio Ruiz, et. al., Neurorights in the Constitution: From Neurotechnology to Ethics and Politics, PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS RESEARCH SOCIETY (January 29, 2025).
15 Id at 4.
16 Snyder, supra note 1 (“debate about BCIs shifted from theoretical promise to practical and very human consequences.”)
17 Calgary Pediatric Brain-Computer Interface Program, supra note 2.
18 Snyder, supra note 1.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Laura Leger, Neurorights in Europe: Striking a Balance between Ethical Regulation and Competitiveness, CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN PROGRESSION (January 16, 2024).
22 Lorena Guzmán H., supra note 7.
23 Id.
24 Snyder, supra note 18.
25 See Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Leger, supra note 21.
29 Lorena Guzmán H., supra note 7.
30 Leger, supra note 21.
31 Leger, supra note 21.
32 See Yu, supra note 12.
33 Id.