Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Neurointerventions and the LawRegulating Human Mental Capacity$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Nicole A Vincent, Thomas Nadelhoffer, and Allan McCay

Print publication date: 2020

Print ISBN-13: 9780190651145

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: June 2020

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190651145.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 24 February 2021

Is There Anything Wrong With Using AI Implantable Brain Devices to Prevent Convicted Offenders from Reoffending?

Is There Anything Wrong With Using AI Implantable Brain Devices to Prevent Convicted Offenders from Reoffending?

Chapter:
(p.113) 5 Is There Anything Wrong With Using AI Implantable Brain Devices to Prevent Convicted Offenders from Reoffending?
Source:
Neurointerventions and the Law
Author(s):

Frédéric Gilbert

Susan Dodds

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190651145.003.0005

The world’s first clinical trial using advisory brain implant operated by artificial intelligence (AI) has been completed with significant success. The tested devices predict a specific neuronal event (epileptic seizure), allowing people implanted with the device to be forewarned and to take steps to reduce or avoid the impact of the event. In principle, these kinds of artificially intelligent devices could be used to predict other neuronal events and allow those implanted with the device to take precautionary steps or to automate drug delivery so as to avoid unwanted outcomes. This chapter examines moral issues arising from the hypothetical situation where such devices controlled by AI are used to ensure that convicted criminal offenders are safe for release into society. We distinguish two types of predictive technologies controlled by AI: advisory systems and automated therapeutic response systems. The purpose of this chapter is to determine which of these two technologies would generate fewer ethical concerns. While there are moral similarities between the two technologies, the latter raises more concerns. In particular, it raises the possibility that individual moral decision-making and moral autonomy can be threatened by the use of automated implants.

Keywords:   artificial intelligence, advisory device, automated therapeutic intervention, autonomy, brain implant, crime, control, moral autonomy, predictive system, therapeutic response

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .