qEEG and LORETA typically use 19 scalp electrodes. But materials science has made huge strides with graphene that allow much more sophisticated computer-brain interfaces, including critically important retinal implants for visual/spatial processing. Researchers have already inserted up to several thousand electrodes in ape brains.
If we can run video games with 19 contact points, what sort of control might we get with 5,000 graphene nodes? What other computer-brain interfaces will emerge as the signals are interpreted by AI software in increasingly sophisticated ways?
This presents ethical problems:
Do we implant our children so they can compete with others in the classroom?
Suppose we decide implants in children are unethical, but other countries encourage these cyborg humans from a young age, who have direct links to Internet and computational resources. Are we now at a competitive/evolutionary disadvantage?
How about computer-brain interfaces for the military? Without cyborg development, can our soldiers compete with armies that do promote such cyborg development in the country's children, with highly skilled automatic brain links to real-time computational military sources and data?
Lastly, as increasingly sophisticated AI software allows us to communicate through increasingly sophisticated, network-connected, computer-brain interfaces, we have to allow for the terrifying prospect of computational brain-slavery: A single human brain has staggering amounts of computing power, and analogically-indexed memory storage. There are areas of the world where life is cheap, and workers may make as little as $10 a day. How long will it be before commercial interests seek to harvest these computational resources that are coming online?
If implants become common, what are the privacy concerns of having your brain maps and potentials become part of your permanent educational and neurological records?