# Brain-computer interfaces could create a new digital divide, and this time it may be biological > Source: > Published: 2026-07-22 14:47:37+00:00 *As BCIs move from laboratories towards commercial use, Neurochip.com founder Herbert Sim warns that unequal access could separate people not only by income or connectivity, but by physical and cognitive capability.* At the 2026 [World Artificial Intelligence Conference](https://thenextweb.com/news/xi-jinping-waic-2026-shanghai-ai-speech) in Shanghai, Chinese President Xi Jinping warned that technological progress must not create “new historical injustices.” *He called for a more open and inclusive approach to AI, particularly for the Global South, while urging governments to keep the technology “secure and controllable.*” The warning was directed at artificial intelligence. But it may apply even more urgently to technology that could eventually connect AI directly to the human nervous system. [Brain-computer interfaces](https://thenextweb.com/news/brain-implants-happening-ready), or BCIs, translate neural activity into commands for computers, prosthetics, communication tools, and other devices. In March, China approved a [commercially available implant](https://thenextweb.com/news/china-first-commercial-brain-implant-neuracle-neo) developed by Neuracle Medical Technology for certain patients with spinal cord injuries, a milestone that moved BCI beyond experimental trials and closer to real-world healthcare. For Herbert Sim, founder of [Neurochip.com](https://neurochip.com/), the breakthrough raises a question receiving less attention than the technology itself: who gets access? “*The first stage of brain-computer interface is medical,*” Sim says. “*The second stage is productivity. The third stage is national competitiveness.*” That progression could produce enormous benefits. BCIs may help people regain movement, [communicate after neurological injury](https://thenextweb.com/news/uc-davis-brain-computer-interface-als-speech-casey-harrell-3800-hours), control assistive devices, or interact more naturally with AI. Yet the same progression could create a hierarchy between people who use neurotechnology to restore lost abilities, those who can afford to enhance their performance, and those excluded from both. The first digital divide separated people with internet access from those without it. The AI divide increasingly separates organisations and countries with advanced models, computing infrastructure, data, and capital from everyone else. The BCI divide could go further. It could affect how quickly people learn, work, communicate, or control machines. ## From medical access to cognitive advantage The ethical distinction between restoration and enhancement appears clear until the same device can do both. A neural interface developed for rehabilitation might later help a healthy worker operate software faster. A headset designed to monitor fatigue could become a productivity-ranking system. An attention-training device used in schools could give wealthier students an additional advantage. Employers may subsidise BCIs for high-value staff while expecting other workers to compete without them. The divide would not be purely financial. Geography, healthcare systems, insurance coverage, regulation, language, disability policy, and access to high-quality neural datasets could all determine who benefits. Sim argues that non-invasive systems could reduce some of these barriers. Neurochip.com currently focuses on wearable approaches rather than beginning with surgery. Non-invasive BCIs remove the need to surgically implant electrodes, although they can face limitations in signal quality, spatial precision, and practical deployment. Lowering the surgical barrier, however, does not automatically create equality. A safe headset can still be unaffordable. Its most useful features can still sit behind subscriptions. Neural data can still be captured by employers, insurers, governments, or technology platforms. An accessible interface can become an instrument of surveillance as easily as one of empowerment. ## A transhumanist meets the economics of access Sim has built a public profile as a thought leader in transhumanism, the idea that technology can restore, extend, or alter human capability. He points to a long-running portfolio associated with that work: [Transhumanism.com](https://transhumanism.com/), established in 1997; Neurochip.com in 1999; and [GeneticsTechnology.com](https://geneticstechnology.com/) in 2002. Registration records confirm the early establishment of Transhumanism.com. His route into neurotechnology also passed through economics. PoliticalEconomics.com, established in 2002, reflects his interest in how governments, markets, and institutions distribute power. CounterEconomics.com, established in 2011, focused that interest on economic activity outside conventional state-controlled structures and helped shape his later expertise in Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. Registration records date PoliticalEconomics.com to June 2002. Sim subsequently developed the Bitcoin Man® public identity through TheBitcoinMan.com. What began as a cryptocurrency-focused personality was converted into a venture-capital vehicle in 2019. Sim says the fund now invests around his interests in BCI research and other transhumanist technologies. That crossover matters because access to transformative technology is ultimately an economic question. Who funds it? Who owns the infrastructure? Who captures the data? Who receives treatment first? And does the market optimise for the greatest medical need or the highest-paying customer? Sim’s reach extends beyond investment circles. His @TheBitcoinMan YouTube channel has surpassed 10 million subscribers and received YouTube’s Diamond Play Button, giving him a mass audience for content spanning cryptocurrency, AI-generated media, and futurist themes. “*Crypto changed money*,” Sim says. “*AI is changing intelligence. Brain-computer interface may change what it means to be human.*” ## Preventing a neural underclass Avoiding a BCI divide will require rules before mass adoption, not after it. Neural data may need protections stronger than conventional personal data. Researchers have already warned that combining neurotechnology with AI raises questions about mental privacy, cognitive liberty, and control over information derived from the brain. Workers should not be compelled to disclose cognitive states or wear brain-monitoring systems as a condition of employment. Medical access should not depend entirely on premium insurance. Public research funding should include affordability and accessibility obligations. Interoperability standards could prevent a small number of companies from controlling the interface between people and machines. The objective should not be to slow technologies that could restore movement or communication. It should be to prevent restoration from becoming a luxury and enhancement from becoming an entry requirement for education or employment. Xi’s phrase, “*new historical injustices,*” captures the scale of the risk. If [AI inequality](https://thenextweb.com/news/china-ai-global-cooperation-vs-g7-export-controls) concerns unequal access to machine intelligence, BCI inequality could concern unequal access to the machinery of human agency itself. The next digital divide may not be visible on a map of broadband coverage. It may run through hospitals, classrooms, workplaces, and eventually the human nervous system. ## Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. TNW newsroom and editorial staff were not involved in the creation of this content.