Meta Brain Decoding

 

 

Meta AI worked on AI that can read mind and translate the thoughts into images - Of course it is presented as beneficial for medical applications but that should raise strong concerns about privacy and personal freedom and the use by the police of such technology should be strongly regulated or forbidden. As we know from the past, any new technology will spread and be used by all the bodies of the society and will challenge our freedom. We shoudl start now to decide how to move on with such technology.

 Technology:

 Meta AI has developed a new artificial intelligence system that can generate images from brain data in milliseconds. This system uses magnetoencephalography (MEG) to decode visual representations in the brain, providing a new tool for understanding how images are represented and used as the basis of human intelligence. The long-term goal of this research is to pave the way for non-invasive brain-computer interfaces in clinical settings, which could potentially assist individuals who have lost the ability to speak due to brain injury

 The AI system is based on a three-part architecture that includes an image encoder, a brain encoder, and an image decoder. The image encoder generates a set of representations of an image independently of the brain, while the brain encoder matches the MEG signals to these image encodings. Finally, the image decoder generates a plausible image based on the brain representations

 The system was trained using a publicly available dataset of MEG recordings from healthy volunteers. The research team found that brain signals are the best match for advanced vision AI systems such as DINOv2, a self-supervising AI architecture that can learn visual representations without human guidance. This discovery confirms that self-supervised learning leads AI systems to develop brain-like representations, with artificial neurons in the algorithm activating similarly to physical neurons in the brain when exposed to the same image

 Privacy and Personal Freedom:

 Here are some potential drawbacks or concerns with technology that can decode brain activity and generate images in real-time:

 Privacy and data security - Recording and decoding someone's brain activity generates highly sensitive personal data. Strict protocols would need to be followed to securely store, use and share this information.

 Consent and control - It may not always be clear whether a person intended to share what they are thinking or seeing. This could reveal private thoughts without consent. Control over the system would need to be balanced.

 Interpretability - The decoded images are not perfectly accurate renditions and interpretation of the brain data involves some subjectivity. Mistakes could wrongly infer someone's mental state or experience.

 Overreliance and reduced agency - If the technology becomes integrated into daily life, it could potentially undermine a person's sense of independence and autonomy over their own thoughts and perceptions.

 Surveillance risks - While the current research is non-invasive, more accurate and continuous brain decoding could enable new forms of clandestine monitoring if applied without permission or oversight.

 Psychosocial effects - Constantly decoding and potentially sharing private mental content could increase anxiety and undermine a sense of inner privacy which is important for well-being.

 Access and control - Like other technologies, there are risks of certain groups being denied access or having less control over how their brain data is collected and used.

 Police State Control:

 It would be highly problematic and raise major ethical issues if brain decoding technology was used by police to directly read people's thoughts without consent. Here are a few key considerations regarding police use:

 Accuracy limitations: As noted, current systems can only infer broad representations, not read precise thoughts. Using it for criminal investigations could wrongly accuse innocent people based on misinterpretations.

 Invasion of privacy: People have a basic expectation that their internal thoughts are private. Forced decoding by police without permission or cause could undermine individual autonomy and dignity.

 Potential for bias and abuse: Like other forensic technologies, there are risks of biased interpretations or unjustified targeting of certain groups if not strictly regulated and overseen.

 Consent challenges: It may not always be clear if internal thoughts are consciously produced or how willing participation can be meaningfully given during a police encounter.

 Lack of oversight: Police use is more difficult to monitor and audit compared to research contexts. Strong safeguards would be needed to prevent potential misuse or function creep.

 Premature adoption: The technology is still in early research stages with many unknowns. Adoption for law enforcement before limitations are better understood risks misleading investigations.

 Unless and until techniques achieve much higher accuracy, transparency and non-invasiveness with meaningful oversight and consent protocols, direct police use of brain decoding for criminal probes raises serious societal and ethical implications that demand open discussion and prudent policy making. Most experts argue it is not ready or advisable for such high-stakes applications.

 Regulation needed to protect personla freedom:

 Here are some potential regulations that could be implemented to help ensure personal freedom is respected with brain decoding technologies:

 Require explicit opt-in consent for any collection/use of brain data, with clear controls over access and sharing. Participants should have means to revoke consent at any time.

 Strict protocols around data privacy and security, including encrypting brain scans, limiting storage duration and preventing commercial exploitation without ongoing consent.

 Establish independent oversight boards to regularly audit research practices, address potential biases and resolve privacy/consent issues, similar to institutional review boards for human subjects research.

 Ban non-consensual, covert or law enforcement use of brain scanning except in limited cases like medical emergencies with court authorization. General Population scanning would need appropriate ethical review.

 Exclude using brain data for discriminatory purposes like insurance eligibility, hiring, firing, advertising targeting without explicit permission for each specified use.

 Provide access to scan data and opportunities to participate in research for all socioeconomic groups to prevent exacerbating existing inequities.

 Make results non-identifiable by removing or altering personal details that could be used to identify the individual when data is published or shared externally.

 Educate the public about capabilities and limitations so people understand what can and cannot be inferred from their brain activity to maintain a sense of cognitive privacy.

  Introduce a "right to explanation" allowing individuals to request reasoning behind any AI inferences made about their mental processes or states.

 These propose prioritizing informed consent, oversight, privacy, non-discrimination and equity in regulations governing this sensitive domain. Open debate on additional necessary safeguards would also be warranted.