HYBRIDMINDS—summary and outlook of the 2023 international conference on the ethics and regulation of intelligent neuroprostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have developed rapidly in recent years with an increasing number of applications and AI-enabled devices that are about to enter the market. While promising to substantially improve quality of life across various severe medical conditions, there are also concerns that the convergence of these technologies, e.g., in the form of intelligent neuroprostheses, may have undesirable consequences and compromise cognitive liberty, mental integrity, or mental privacy. Therefore, various international organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) or United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), have formed initiatives to tackle such questions and develop recommendations that mitigate risks while fostering innovation. In this context, a first international conference on the ethics and regulation of intelligent neuroprostheses was held in Berlin, Germany, in autumn 2023. The conference gathered leading experts in neuroscience, engineering, ethics, law, philosophy as well as representatives of industry, policy making and the media. Here, we summarize the highlights of the conference, underline the areas in which a broad consensus was found among participants, and provide an outlook on future challenges in development, deployment, and regulation of intelligent neuroprostheses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".