How to deal with mind-reading technologies

Andorno, Roberto; Lavazza, Andrea

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1290478

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the contrary, what we highlight is that creating new lists of redundant rights does not protect nor is it sufficient per se. We agree with Andorno and Lavazza (2023) who argue that concrete legal regulations would be required since "the mere formal recognition of such a right would be largely ineffective without concrete legal measures" (p. 2). However, it seems to us that the broad inconveniences of neurorights allow us to conclude: we do not oppose regulation; we oppose bad regulation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Between politics and scholarship: the (un)settled debate over neurorights

Borbón,

Ramírez-Gómez

2024

Front. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Between politics and scholarship: the (un)settled debate over neurorights

Borbón,

Ramírez-Gómez

2024

Front. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Extended mentality and ascriptive authority

Winokur

2024

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Gilbert,

Russo

2024

AI Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

How to deal with mind-reading technologies

Cited by 3 publications

References 14 publications

Between politics and scholarship: the (un)settled debate over neurorights

Between politics and scholarship: the (un)settled debate over neurorights

Extended mentality and ascriptive authority

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About