Danaher, J., Nyholm, S.
AI Ethics (2024).
Abstract
With recent technological advances, it is possible to create personalised digital duplicates. These are partial, at least semi-autonomous, recreations of real people in digital form. Should such duplicates be created? When can they be used? This article develops a general framework for thinking about the ethics of digital duplicates. It starts by clarifying the object of inquiry– digital duplicates themselves– defining them, giving examples, and justifying the focus on them rather than other kinds of artificial being. It then identifies a set of generic harms and benefits associated with digital duplicates and uses this as the basis for formulating a minimally viable permissible principle (MVPP) that stipulates widely agreeable conditions that should be met in order for the creation and use of digital duplicates to be ethically permissible. It concludes by assessing whether it is possible for those conditions to be met in practice, and whether it is possible for the use of digital duplicates to be more or less permissible.
Here are some thoughts:
Artificial intelligence advancements are making digital duplicates, recreations of real people in digital form, a more realistic possibility. This presentation explores the ethical considerations surrounding this new technology. The text defines "personalized digital duplicates" and clarifies how they differ from other AI creations.
A key concept introduced in the text is the "minimally viable permissible principle" (MVPP). This framework can be used to assess the ethics of creating and using digital duplicates in specific situations. The MVPP considers factors such as informed consent, potential benefits and harms, transparency, and whether the real person's presence is truly necessary.
The text acknowledges that the MVPP doesn't determine if creating a specific digital duplicate is a good idea, only if it's ethically permissible. Additionally, the authors recognize that permissibility can exist on a spectrum. There will be situations where creating a digital duplicate is clearly permissible, while others may be ethically questionable. The text concludes by calling for further research to weigh the potential benefits and harms of this technology.
Just brainstorming wildly here: The creation of a therapist's digital duplicate could provide wider access to psychotherapy services and enhance revenue, but ethical considerations around confidentiality, transparency, standards of care, psychologist responsibility, a lack of outcome data, safety, risk management, and the therapeutic relationship would need to be addressed.
