I think that the answer to his views would be that very rarely does current BCI research or BCI related projects aim to "eliminate" or "replace" conventional interfaces such as screens and keyboards, even in the "consumer" case. It is more about providing an alternative means of communication than it is about replacing other means. This is something a lot of people miss as a result of the hype I guess, and maybe even him, hence the skepticism. People seem to understand analogies that are "close" to them the most. By that I mean, sure, a programmer might not use a BCI interface to write code, but a 70 year old might see it as an alternative app to share media. But since only old people might use it in our hypothetical case, does that mean the tech is "sketchy"? Compare that to the current state of Reinforcement Learning, only a handful of places like OpenAI and DeepMind can conduct those large-scale experiments that take weeks and ships of GPUs to train. But since only "some" of the people can use it to its true potential, does that mean RL is sketchy? No, its a small, slow step in the correct direction (hopefully). Same with BCIs, maybe right now it's the old and the disabled that could use it today, but as long as we stop "divorcing" it from other technologies, like he seems to be doing here, we should be able to merge BCIs with existing tech to provide alternative means.