In order to have a positive effect, a technology only needs to be less discriminatory than the technology it replaces. I chose the example of education because

In order to have a positive effect, a technology only needs to be less discriminatory than the technology it replaces. I chose the example of education because it is very expensive and discriminatory today; a technology which replaces the need for tuition could still be expensive and improve social mobility. > If hypothetically, a brain-computer interface were to exist, it would likely reach individuals that are well-off first. While often true for technology generally, medical technology has special considerations. Rather than simply reaching the well-off first, performance enhancing neurological implants are likely to reach the disabled first, where it is deemed ethically more acceptable, as has been the case so far. Due to public healthcare, health insurance, and research contribution, patients' wealth is not always crucial here. It may be the case that costs reduce greatly before non-medical uses become acceptable. In the case of BCIs, the acceptability of their non-medically necessary use cases would likely depend of the technology's maturity. The extent to which market differentiation is possible is not yet clear for such technology, particularly if the market is competitive. Tiering is typically based on either having a unique product (e.g. nobody else can make an equivalent) which can be artificially crippled, or natural differences in production quality (e.g. only some cores of this processor work).