Mind-reading in AI and neurotechnology: evaluating claims, hype, and ethical implications for neurorights

Gilbert, F., & Russo, I. (2024).

AI And Ethics.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00514-6

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.

Brain-reading tech is coming. The law is not ready to protect us.

Sigal Samuel
vox.com
Originally posted August 30, 2019

Here is an excerpt:

2. The right to mental privacy

You should have the right to seclude your brain data or to publicly share it.

Ienca emphasized that neurotechnology has huge implications for law enforcement and government surveillance. “If brain-reading devices have the ability to read the content of thoughts,” he said, “in the years to come governments will be interested in using this tech for interrogations and investigations.”

The right to remain silent and the principle against self-incrimination — enshrined in the US Constitution — could become meaningless in a world where the authorities are empowered to eavesdrop on your mental state without your consent.

It’s a scenario reminiscent of the sci-fi movie Minority Report, in which a special police unit called the PreCrime Division identifies and arrests murderers before they commit their crimes.

3. The right to mental integrity

You should have the right not to be harmed physically or psychologically by neurotechnology.

BCIs equipped with a “write” function can enable new forms of brainwashing, theoretically enabling all sorts of people to exert control over our minds: religious authorities who want to indoctrinate people, political regimes that want to quash dissent, terrorist groups seeking new recruits.

What’s more, devices like those being built by Facebook and Neuralink may be vulnerable to hacking. What happens if you’re using one of them and a malicious actor intercepts the Bluetooth signal, increasing or decreasing the voltage of the current that goes to your brain — thus making you more depressed, say, or more compliant?

Neuroethicists refer to that as brainjacking. “This is still hypothetical, but the possibility has been demonstrated in proof-of-concept studies,” Ienca said, adding, “A hack like this wouldn’t require that much technological sophistication.”

The info is here.