Loftus and Palmer (1974) investigated the extent to which eyewitness testimony can be influenced by variables other than a person’s original memory of an event.
Listen to this series of comprehensive podcasts which cover the core studies from the OCR A-Level Psychology (H567) syllabus, covering themes, debates, ethics, methodology and more.
The weaponization of the scientific and technological breakthroughs stemming from human genome research presents a serious global security challenge. Gene-editing pioneer and Nobel Laureate Jennifer Doudna often tells a story of a nightmare she once had. A colleague asked her to teach someone how her technology works. She went to meet the student and “was shocked to see Adolf Hitler, in the flesh.”
Doudna is not alone in being haunted by the power of science. Famously, having just returned home from Los Alamos in early 1945, John von Neumann awakened in panic. “What we are creating now is a monster whose influence is going to change history, provided there is any history left,” he stammered while straining to speak to his wife. He surmised, however, that “it would be impossible not to see it through, not only for military reasons, but it would also be unethical from the point of view of the scientists not to do what they knew is feasible, no matter what terrible consequences it may have.”
According to biographer Ananyo Bhattacharya, von Neumann saw what was happening in Nazi Germany and the USSR and believed that “the best he could do is allow politicians to make those [ethical and security] decisions: to put his brain in their hands.” Living through a devastating world war, the Manhattan Project polymath “had no trust left in human nature.”
Human cerebral organoids are three-dimensional biological cultures grown in the laboratory to mimic as closely as possible the cellular composition, structure, and function of the corresponding organ, the brain. For now, cerebral organoids lack blood vessels and other characteristics of the human brain, but are also capable of having coordinated electrical activity. They have been usefully employed for the study of several diseases and the development of the nervous system in unprecedented ways. Research on human cerebral organoids is proceeding at a very fast pace and their complexity is bound to improve. This raises the question of whether cerebral organoids will also be able to develop the unique feature of the human brain, consciousness. If this is the case, some ethical issues would arise. In this article, we discuss the necessary neural correlates and constraints for the emergence of consciousness according to some of the most debated neuroscientific theories. Based on this, we consider what the moral status of a potentially conscious brain organoid might be, in light of ethical and ontological arguments. We conclude by proposing a precautionary principle and some leads for further investigation. In particular, we consider the outcomes of some very recent experiments as entities of a potential new kind.
Data captured and fed into an AI model should be used to shape and inform marketing programs for the betterment of the customer’s experience. Such a practice enables marketers to utilize valuable information but doesn’t put data privacy at risk. Humans maintain control and can add their own handprint to AI-generated content to develop something much more meaningful that resonates with targeted audiences. Within that construct, marketers must bring the heart and the emotional intelligence to generative AI if they want to maximize its potential while maintaining ethical boundaries.
Human-connected generative AI is poised to be the ultimate tool if used responsibly. It can recognize patterns and insights and develop recommendations for actions, effectively making workers smarter and better at their jobs.
Most businesses see generative AI’s capabilities as opportunities to do more with less. Now it’s time to take the next step forward, connecting data insights with personalized content to ethically move through the pipeline at a new level of speed and efficiency—and in a manner that’s rewarding and enriching for customers.
A VERY interesting 6 minutes. People tests? One pill? Next Gen? Hurry, I’m 52! There is an ongoing idea that it will take several kinds of treatments, but many years ago I recall Cynthia Kenyan talking about how some research shows it might come down to a pill.
David Sinclair shares the latest incredible research they are doing.
Prosthetics moved by thoughts. Targeted treatments for aggressive brain cancer. Soldiers with enhanced vision or bionic ears.
These powerful technologies sound like science fiction, but they’re becoming possible thanks to nanoparticles.
And, as with any great power, there comes great responsibility.
Working to integrate theology, ethics and science, ISCAT Fellow and renowned author Dr. Brian Edgar discusses the future of humanity.
The Death of Death: The Scientific Possibility of Physical Immortality and its Moral Defense (Copernicus Books) — Kindle edition by Cordeiro, José, Wood, David. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading The Death of Death: The Scientific Possibility of Physical Immortality and its Moral Defense (Copernicus Books).
Here’s my latest opinion article, just published at Merion West. It’s about AI and the environment! Give it a read!
“With artificial general intelligence (AGI) likely just decades away, there is an urgent need to consider the extent of environmental harm we are causing. AGI will likely question if humans are good stewards of the planet and quickly come to the conclusion that we are not.”
Many artificial intelligence (AI) scientists believe that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—intelligence on par with humans—will be achieved within 20 years. If this happens, what will AI think of people?
Continue reading “Could AI Become Angry at Humans for Causing Environmental Destruction?” »
Claims that superintelligent AI poses a threat to humanity are frightening, but only because they distract from the real issues today, argues Mhairi Aitken, an ethics fellow at The Alan Turing Institute.
