There's a reason keyboards haven't changed much since the 1860s when typewriters were invented. We keep coming up with other fun UI like touchscreens and VR, but pretty much all real work happens on boring old keyboards.
The gist is that keyboards are optimized for ease of use but that there could be other designs which would be harder to learn but might be more efficient.
> The gist is that keyboards are optimized for ease of use but that there could be other designs which would be harder to learn but might be more efficient.
Here's a relevant trivia question; assuming a person has two hands with five digits each, what is the largest number they can count to using only same?
Answer: (2 ** 10) - 1 = 1023
Ignoring keyboard layout options (such as QWERTY vs DVORAK), IMHO keyboards have the potential for capturing thought faster and with a higher degree of accuracy than other forms of input. For example, it is common for touch-typists to be able to produce 60 - 70 words per minute, for any definition of word.
Modern keyboard input efficiency can be correlated to the ability to choose between dozens of glyphs with one or two finger combinations, typically requiring less than 2cm of movement to produce each.
One day we will look back at improvements to keyboards and touchscreens as the 'faster horse' of the physical interface era.
Even getting zero latency from a perfect brain-machine interface would not make you meaningfully faster at most things I'd assume.