Superethics Instead of Superintelligence: Know Thyself, and Apply Science Accordingly

Abstract

The human species is combining an increased understanding of our cognitive machinery with the development of a technology that can profoundly influence our lives and our ways of living together. Our sciences enable us to see our strengths and weaknesses, and build technology accordingly. What would future historians think of our current attempts to build increasingly smart systems, the purposes for which we employ them, the almost unstoppable goldrush toward ever more commercially relevant implementations, and the risk of superintelligence? We need a more profound reflection on what our science shows us about ourselves, what our technology allows us to do with that, and what, apparently, we aim to do with those insights and applications. As the smartest species on the planet, we don't need more intelligence. Since we appear to possess an underdeveloped capacity to act ethically and empathically, we rather require the kind of technology that enables us to act more consistently upon ethical principles. The problem is not to formulate ethical rules, it's to put them into practice. Cognitive neuroscience and AI provide the knowledge and the tools to develop the moral crutches we so clearly require. Why aren't we building them? We don't need superintelligence, we need superethics.

Eyes on the road: brain computer interfaces and cognitive distraction in traffic

“…Before proceeding, we would like to address a possible criticism common in the ethics of technology. Ethicists are sometimes accused (and quite commonly by other ethicists) of artificially inflating a problem or, even worse, “concern-trolling.” We have seen that happening in neuroethics within the Deep Brain Stimulation debate (Erler, 2021 ) but it can affect literally any discussion developing on hypothetical grounds, like artificial superintelligence (even one of the authors himself indulged in a mild, yet similar criticism in the past; see Haselager and Mecacci, 2020 ). The mere fact that the neurotechnology application we discuss in this paper is not (yet) commercially available or used in the relevant contexts, does not mean a preemptive discussion is not necessary or important, at least to avoid incurring in what has been defined as the “delay fallacy.” This consists in underestimating the risk until enough information about a certain technology is available (Hansson, 2004 ).…”

“…We have seen that happening in neuroethics within the Deep Brain Stimulation debate (Erler, 2021) but it can affect literally any discussion developing on hypothetical grounds, like artificial superintelligence (even one of the authors himself indulged in a mild, yet similar criticism in the past; see Haselager and Mecacci, 2020). The mere fact that the neurotechnology application we discuss in this paper is not (yet) commercially available or used in the relevant contexts, does not mean a preemptive discussion is not necessary or important, at least to avoid incurring in what has been defined as the "delay fallacy."…”

General orders for the embedded researcher: Moorings for a developing profession

“… 12 Specifically, transdisciplinary scholarship requires different fields collaborating over extended periods to develop shared conceptual and methodological frameworks that transcend stakeholders' respective disciplinary perspectives. 12 Embedded researchers can best steward transdisciplinary scholarship when they “know thyself” 13 —both for its own sake, and to better understand other stakeholders. How then might embedded researchers discover, or recall, their identity?…”