Killer Robot Arms: A Case-Study in Brain–Computer Interfaces and Intentional Acts
- 234 Downloads
I use a hypothetical case study of a woman who replaces here biological arms with prostheses controlled through a brain–computer interface the explore how a BCI might interpret and misinterpret intentions. I define pre-veto intentions and post-veto intentions and argue that a failure of a BCI to differentiate between the two could lead to some troubling legal and ethical problems.
KeywordsBrain–computer interface Veto Intentions
- Friedman, B., & Kahn, P., Jr. (2003). Human values, ethics, and design. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human–computer interaction handbook (pp. 1177–1201). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
- Gardener, J. (2012, December 18). Paralyzed mom controls robotic arm using her thoughts. ABC News. Retrieved from http://new.yahoo.com.
- Glannon, W. (2007). Bioethics and the brain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kass, L. et al. (2003). Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Washington, DC: President’s Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
- Klose, C. (2007). Connections that count: Brain–computer interface enables the profoundly paralyzed to communicate. NIH Medline Plus, 2(3), 20–21.Google Scholar
- Wan, W. (2017, November 15). New robotic hand named after Luke Skywalker helps amputee touch and feel again. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com.