Hardly a day seems to go by without news of another breakthrough in technology, particularly in the area of artificial intelligence (AI). For example, a number of new apps that create art based purely on a prompt of a few words have become a bit of an online fad in recent weeks.
Depending on your philosophical approach to AI, the results can be funny, fascinating or frightening – or perhaps all three. Try, for instance, typing the prompt “a painting of Hulk Hogan in the style Van Gogh” on your device, and see what comes back.
That’s an example of humans interacting to a minor degree with AI, but the technology has gone further than that, and the implications are potentially significant, particularly from ethical and legal perspectives.
A new report prepared by Dr Allan McCay, of the University of Sydney’s law school, looks at advances in neurotechnology and how these might affect the law and the legal profession.
Read: A neurologist on how to keep your brain fighting fit
Unlike the art example above, neurotechnology is technology that interacts directly with the brain and the nervous system, by monitoring and recording neural activity and/or acting to influence it.
The idea of technology actually influencing the brain is quite confronting. For those above a certain age who devoured Isaac Asimov’s robotics science fiction novels in the 1970s and `80s, such a concept may sound familiar.
Concept is one thing, though. Reality is another.
How will such technologies be used? One example already being used is for the treatment of patients with Parkinson’s and epilepsy and could be used in the future to monitor and treat schizophrenia, depression and anxiety.
Read: How robots could take over the world
In these cases, the neurotechnology is implanted in the brain, or can be in the form of a headset, wristband or helmet. Such technology might be confronting, but at least it’s being used for good, not evil, as they say.
But the capabilities of this technology go well beyond the example above. It could be used for cognitive enhancement (on the surface, a positive feature) and for monitoring the brains of criminal offenders, using what Dr McCay refers to as ‘brain bracelets’.
Those who take a hard line against lawbreakers might see this as a good thing, but ethicists and privacy advocates might not agree. Is society ready to have that debate? Dr McCay says it needs to be.
“This tech is coming, and we need to think about regulation now,” he says. “Action is needed now as there are already vested interests in the commercial world. We need decisions to be made at the level of society and at the level of businesses around ethics and law.”
Read: Privacy concerns over home quarantine apps
The legal questions that would need to be tackled are numerous. For example, could brain bracelets monitor impulsive thoughts and deliver interventions? Or could a criminal claim his/her brain was ‘hacked’?
What if a court ordered that your brain be monitored at all times? And if it did, who would monitor and store the data being collected? Is there such a thing as ‘brain privacy’ when it comes to the law?
These are no longer conundrums of the future, says Dr McCay. “There are significant neurotech investors such as Elon Musk and Meta (Facebook),” he says. “We need law reform bodies, policy makers and academics to be scrutinising these technological advances rather than waiting for problems to emerge.”
It’s a complex and challenging ethical problem, but one that legal systems and governments around the world are going to have to tackle sooner rather than later.
Are you concerned by the advent of neurotechnology? Or are you looking forward to the benefits it might bring? Why not share your experience and thoughts in the comments section below?
If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.
