Gilbert, F., & Russo, I. (2024).
AI And Ethics.
Abstract
This paper examines claims that the convergence of AI and neurotechnology applications, known as brain-reading, enables the reading of human minds. The purpose of this examination is to investigate whether the use of the terms “brain-reading” and “mind-reading” to convey current neurotechnological findings carries evidence of hype. We conducted an interpretive content analysis of 1017 academic articles to gain insights into the current state of the art and examine assertions made by academics. Our analysis revealed that up to 91% of the examined articles suggest the possibility of mind-reading through brain-reading. Ethical issues discussed frequently include mental privacy, mental freedom, and personhood. Our study highlights the imprecise and inconsistent usage of the term mind-reading in scientific discourse, which leads to exaggerated claims about AI and BCIs having already achieved capacities beyond their current capabilities—or even reaching capacities that may never be feasible. While our study provides evidence of AI and BCI hype concerning alleged mind-reading capabilities, it also uncovers a hype in AI ethics, specifically pertaining to neurorights. This involves hypothetical scenarios where the fictional prospect of AI-enabled mind-reading calls for the establishment of new protective human rights.
Some thoughts:
The convergence of AI and neurotechnology applications, known as brain-reading, has sparked claims that it enables the reading of human minds. However, an examination of academic discourse reveals that these claims may be exaggerated. Through an interpretive content analysis of 1017 academic articles, it was found that 91% of articles suggest the possibility of mind-reading, with 46% claiming current capabilities and 45% anticipating future potential. Despite this, the usage of the term "mind-reading" is inconsistent, leading to hype surrounding AI and BCI capabilities.
Ethical issues, such as mental privacy, mental freedom, and personhood, are frequently discussed in conjunction with brain-reading and mind-reading. The predominant technology mentioned is fMRI, but AI and BCI citations are increasing sharply. Notably, a decline in hype surrounding fMRI is observed, while AI, BCI, and ANN are entering a rising phase of inflated expectations. This hype is not limited to scientific capabilities but also extends to AI ethics, specifically pertaining to neurorights, with hypothetical scenarios driving calls for new protective human rights.
The paper highlights the need for precise and clear usage of scientific terms, differentiation between brain-reading and mind-reading, and stringent regulations governing AI and BCI advancements. Furthermore, the hype surrounding neurorights associated with mind-reading claims warrants further research to elucidate its implications. Ultimately, it is crucial to separate scientific reality from speculative scenarios to ensure that ethical discussions and research efforts are productive and grounded in fact.
