In one of the most provocative revelations on the Shawn Ryan Show, Alexander Wang, the 28-year-old billionaire founder of Scale AI and Meta’s Chief AI Officer, shared an unconventional life decision: he’s deliberately waiting to have children until brain-computer interfaces like Neuralink become reliable and available. This striking personal choice reveals profound insights about the future of human-AI integration and raises urgent questions about humanity’s relationship with technology.
Wang’s reasoning, while initially startling, demonstrates a deep understanding of neuroscience, technology adoption, and the unprecedented opportunities—and risks—that brain-computer interfaces present. His perspective offers a window into how tech leaders are thinking about humanity’s next evolutionary leap, and why they believe the integration of biological and artificial intelligence isn’t just inevitable, but necessary for human survival.
The Neuroplasticity Window: Why Timing Matters
Wang’s decision hinges on a critical neuroscience principle: neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to form new neural connections and adapt to new inputs—peaks dramatically during the first seven years of life. During this window, the human brain exhibits extraordinary flexibility, creating neural pathways that become fundamental to how we perceive and interact with the world.
Speaking with former Navy SEAL Shawn Ryan, Wang illustrated this concept with a striking example. When children are born with cataracts that prevent them from seeing, and those cataracts are removed before age seven, the brain successfully learns to interpret visual signals from the eyes. However, if the cataracts remain until age eight or nine, even their removal won’t enable sight—the neuroplasticity window has closed, and the brain can no longer learn to process visual information.
This biological reality has profound implications for brain-computer interfaces. A child who receives a Neuralink implant or similar technology during those critical early years could potentially develop cognitive capabilities that seem almost superhuman from today’s perspective. The brain would literally wire itself to interface with artificial intelligence in ways that would be impossible for adults who receive the technology later in life.
Wang believes this neuroplasticity advantage will create a fundamental divide between generations. Children who grow up with brain-computer interfaces will process information, solve problems, and interact with technology in ways that adults—even those who later adopt the same technology—simply cannot replicate. The technology won’t just be a tool they use; it will be integrated into the very fabric of their cognition.
The Inevitable Merger: Do Humans Need AI Integration?
Wang’s willingness to time life’s most personal decisions around technology availability stems from his conviction that human-AI integration isn’t optional—it’s necessary for humanity’s continued relevance. This belief isn’t rooted in techno-utopianism, but in pragmatic assessment of artificial intelligence’s trajectory.
AI capabilities are advancing exponentially. Systems that seemed impossible five years ago are now commonplace. Meanwhile, biological human intelligence evolves at the glacial pace of natural selection, requiring millions of years for significant changes. This creates an increasingly dangerous divergence—artificial intelligence racing ahead while biological intelligence stands relatively still.
Wang argues that at some point, humans will need direct neural interfaces to AI systems simply to remain economically and socially relevant. Without such augmentation, people might struggle to compete in job markets, make informed decisions, or even understand the AI-driven world around them. The alternative—a world where AI systems become so advanced that humans become effectively obsolete—represents an unacceptable outcome.
This perspective aligns with concerns raised by futurists and AI researchers about the “intelligence explosion” scenario. Once AI systems become sufficiently advanced, they could potentially improve themselves recursively, creating ever-more-capable systems at an accelerating pace. Without a direct connection to these systems, humans might find themselves relegated to bystander status in their own civilization.
The Scale AI founder emphasized that this integration must happen thoughtfully, with strong ethical frameworks and human oversight. But he sees the direction as inevitable—the question is not whether humans will augment themselves with AI, but how and when this augmentation will occur.
The Dark Side: Risks of Brain-Computer Interfaces
Wang didn’t shy away from discussing the terrifying risks that brain-computer interfaces present. During his conversation with Ryan, he acknowledged multiple nightmare scenarios that keep ethicists and security experts awake at night.
The most obvious risk involves hacking. If a brain-computer interface can send information to your brain, it could theoretically be compromised by malicious actors—whether corporate interests, foreign adversaries, or cybercriminals. Wang noted that corporations might use such access to send targeted advertisements directly to your consciousness or manipulate your desires to favor their products. Far worse, hostile nations or terrorist organizations could potentially access people’s memories, manipulate their thoughts, or even control their actions.
Neuroscientist Andrew Huberman, in his own conversation with Ryan, confirmed these fears. If brain-computer interfaces can help blind people see by sending visual information to the brain, they could equally project completely false realities into someone’s consciousness. The technology that enables sight restoration could also enable total sensory manipulation—creating virtual realities indistinguishable from actual experience.
But the threats extend beyond vision. Huberman explained that the same technology could manipulate all five senses—sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. More disturbingly, it could potentially insert emotions directly into the brain: fear, desire, anger, or contentment on command. Dr. Ben Carson, the renowned neurosurgeon, corroborated these concerns in his own discussion with Ryan, confirming that the technology would indeed possess such capabilities.
Wang’s response to these risks reflects his characteristic pragmatism. He acknowledges the dangers but argues that, like any powerful technology, brain-computer interfaces must be developed with robust security measures, ethical guidelines, and regulatory frameworks. The technology will emerge regardless of our concerns—the question is whether it emerges from democratic societies with strong values around privacy and human rights, or from authoritarian regimes with different priorities.
Current Progress: Where Neuralink and Competitors Stand
Neuralink, Elon Musk’s brain-computer interface company, has made significant progress toward making such technology viable. The company has conducted successful trials with both animal subjects and human volunteers, demonstrating that direct brain-computer communication is not science fiction—it’s emerging reality.
Current applications focus on medical interventions: helping paralyzed individuals control computer cursors, enabling communication for people with severe disabilities, and potentially restoring lost sensory functions. These applications follow the traditional path of transformative technologies—beginning with therapeutic uses that address clear medical needs before expanding to enhancement applications for healthy individuals.
Wang’s discussion with Ryan revealed that the timeline for widespread availability of safe, reliable brain-computer interfaces might be shorter than many people realize. Multiple companies beyond Neuralink are working on similar technologies, each taking slightly different approaches to the fundamental challenge of creating stable, high-bandwidth connections between biological neurons and electronic systems.
The technical challenges remain formidable. Creating biocompatible devices that can remain implanted for decades without rejection or degradation requires materials science breakthroughs. Developing the algorithms to translate between neural signals and digital information demands advances in both neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Ensuring cybersecurity for devices with direct access to human cognition requires entirely new security paradigms.
However, the pace of progress suggests these challenges may be overcome within the current decade. Wang’s decision to time potential fatherhood around this technology indicates his belief that practical, safe brain-computer interfaces could become available within the timeframe relevant to starting a family.
The Generational Divide: Enhanced Humans and Natural Humans
Wang’s strategy of waiting for brain-computer interfaces before having children raises unsettling questions about the future relationship between enhanced and non-enhanced humans. If he’s correct that children who receive such technology during their neuroplasticity window will develop cognitive capabilities far beyond naturally-developing humans, society faces a profound challenge.
Will we see the emergence of a cognitive aristocracy—a class of enhanced individuals with capabilities that create unbridgeable gaps between themselves and unenhanced humans? How will educational systems adapt when some children can interface directly with the sum of human knowledge while others learn through traditional methods? What happens to social mobility and equality of opportunity when cognitive enhancement becomes possible but not universally available?
These questions echo historical debates about genetic engineering and human enhancement, but with even more immediate implications. Unlike genetic modifications that might take effect gradually over generations, brain-computer interfaces could create capability gaps within a single generation—between siblings who receive the technology at different ages, or between families with different access to expensive medical procedures.
Wang seems to accept that such disparities will emerge but believes they’re preferable to the alternative: a humanity that falls increasingly behind the AI systems it created. From his perspective, the goal shouldn’t be to prevent enhancement altogether, but to ensure that enhancement technologies become widely available rather than remaining exclusive to elites.
The Ethical Framework: Maintaining Human Sovereignty
Despite his enthusiasm for human-AI integration, Wang consistently emphasizes the importance of maintaining “human sovereignty”—ensuring that humans retain ultimate control over their own cognitive processes and decisions. This principle guides Scale AI’s work in both commercial and defense applications.
Human sovereignty in the context of brain-computer interfaces means several things. First, individuals must maintain the ability to disconnect from AI systems when desired. Second, humans must retain control over what information enters their consciousness and how it’s processed. Third, the enhanced capabilities provided by brain-computer interfaces should augment rather than replace human judgment and decision-making.
This framework distinguishes Wang’s vision from more dystopian scenarios where humans become mere appendages to AI systems or lose their agency entirely. He envisions brain-computer interfaces as tools that expand human capability while preserving human autonomy—a delicate balance that will require careful design and strong regulatory oversight.
The Scale AI founder argues that achieving this balance is possible but not guaranteed. It requires intentional choices about how brain-computer interfaces are designed, deployed, and governed. Democratic societies with strong institutions and values around individual liberty have better chances of getting this balance right than authoritarian regimes that might prioritize control over autonomy.
Practical Implications: What This Means for Parents Today
For parents making decisions today about their children’s futures, Wang’s perspective offers both hope and anxiety. On one hand, brain-computer interface technology might provide today’s children with unprecedented opportunities for cognitive enhancement, potentially addressing learning disabilities, enabling new forms of creativity, and preparing them for an AI-driven future.
On the other hand, the technology remains experimental, with unknown long-term effects and substantial risks. Parents must balance the potential benefits of early adoption against the very real dangers of being early adopters of invasive medical technology. Unlike smartphones or computers, brain implants cannot simply be uninstalled if problems emerge.
Wang’s strategy—waiting for the technology to mature before having children—represents one approach, but it’s not feasible or desirable for everyone. Most people can’t or won’t time their families around technology availability. This means that children born today will likely face a choice later in life: undergo brain-computer interface implantation as older children or adults, accepting the neuroplasticity limitations Wang described, or remain unenhanced and potentially disadvantaged compared to younger cohorts who received the technology earlier.
Educational institutions, policymakers, and healthcare systems need to begin preparing now for a future where brain-computer interfaces become commonplace. This preparation includes developing ethical frameworks, establishing safety standards, creating equitable access mechanisms, and building the regulatory infrastructure necessary to govern such transformative technology.
The Timeline: When Will This Technology Arrive?
While Wang didn’t provide specific timelines, his willingness to delay fatherhood suggests he believes practical brain-computer interfaces will become available within a relatively short timeframe—perhaps five to ten years. This estimate aligns with public statements from Neuralink and other companies working in this space.
Neuralink has already conducted successful human trials, demonstrating that the fundamental technology works. The pathway from successful trials to widespread medical availability typically spans several years as companies work through regulatory approvals, refine their technologies based on real-world results, and scale manufacturing capabilities.
The transition from medical applications to enhancement applications for healthy individuals will likely take longer, requiring different regulatory approaches and overcoming additional ethical hurdles. However, the boundary between therapy and enhancement often blurs—particularly in cases where brain-computer interfaces might be justified for preventing cognitive decline or enhancing working memory in demanding professions.
Wang’s background in AI development provides unique insight into this timeline. As someone working at the cutting edge of both AI advancement and human-AI integration, he understands better than most how quickly capabilities are evolving and when practical applications might emerge. His personal decision to wait rather than adopt current technologies suggests the timeline is measured in years, not decades, but that current implementations aren’t yet reliable enough for such a permanent, intimate intervention.
Conclusion: Choosing Our Cyborg Future
Alexander Wang’s decision to wait for brain-computer interfaces before having children might seem extreme, but it reflects a deeper truth: the choices we make today about human-AI integration will fundamentally shape humanity’s future. We stand at an inflection point where biology and technology are beginning to merge in ways previously confined to science fiction.
The questions Wang’s choice raises don’t have easy answers. How do we balance the tremendous potential benefits of brain-computer interfaces against equally significant risks? How do we ensure equitable access to cognitive enhancement technologies? How do we maintain human agency and dignity in an age of artificial intelligence? These challenges demand thoughtful consideration from policymakers, ethicists, technologists, and society as a whole.
What’s certain is that brain-computer interfaces are coming, whether we’re ready or not. Companies like Neuralink are making steady progress, driven by both medical applications and the broader vision of human cognitive enhancement. The technology will emerge from current research labs and human trials into general availability within the foreseeable future.
Wang’s perspective suggests that rather than fearing or resisting this transformation, we should focus on shaping it in accordance with human values. The goal isn’t to prevent the merger of biological and artificial intelligence—that merger may be necessary for humans to remain relevant in an AI-driven world. Instead, the goal should be ensuring this merger happens in ways that enhance rather than diminish human dignity, expand rather than constrain human freedom, and benefit all of humanity rather than just a privileged few.
For a young billionaire at the forefront of AI development, timing parenthood around brain-computer interface availability represents a rational response to technological reality. For the rest of us, it serves as a wake-up call: the future Wang envisions isn’t distant speculation—it’s an approaching reality that will reshape what it means to be human. The question is not whether this future will arrive, but how we’ll navigate it when it does.