Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly expected to disrupt the ordinary functioning of society. From how we fight wars or govern society, to how we work and play, and from how we create to how we teach and learn, there is almost no field of human activity which is believed to be entirely immune from the impact of this emerging technology. This poses a multifaceted problem when it comes to designing and understanding regulatory responses to AI. This article aims to: (i) defend the need for a novel conceptual model for understanding the systemic legal disruption caused by new technologies such as AI; (ii) to situate this model in relation to preceding debates about the interaction of regulation with new technologies (particularly the 'cyberlaw' and 'robolaw' debates); and (iii) to set out a detailed model for understanding the legal disruption precipitated by AI, examining both pathways stemming from new affordances that can give rise to a regulatory 'disruptive moment', as well as the Legal Development, Displacement or Destruction that can ensue. The article proposes that this model of legal disruption can be broadly generalisable to understanding the legal effects and challenges of other emerging technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the common view, conscientious objection is grounded in autonomy and is tolerated out of respect for the objector's autonomy. Emphasising autonomy as a central concept within the issue of conscientious objection implies that the conscientious objector has an independent choice among alternative beliefs, positions or values. In this paper, it is argued that: (a) it is not true that the typical conscientious objector has such a choice when they decide to act upon their conscience and (b) it is not true that the typical conscientious objector exercises autonomy when developing or acquiring their conscience. Therefore, tolerating conscientious objection does not reflect respect for the conscientious objector's right to choose but rather acknowledges their lack of real ability to choose their conscience and to refrain from acting upon their conscience. This has both normative and analytical implications for the treatment of conscientious objectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growth of self-tracking and personal surveillance has given rise to the Quantified Self movement. Members of this movement seek to enhance their personal well-being, productivity, and self-actualization through the tracking and gamification of personal data. The technologies that make this possible can also track and gamify aspects of our interpersonal, romantic relationships. Several authors have begun to challenge the ethical and normative implications of this development. In this article, we build upon this work to provide a detailed ethical analysis of the Quantified Relationship (QR). We identify eight core objections to the QR and subject them to critical scrutiny. We argue that although critics raise legitimate concerns, there are ways in which tracking technologies can be used to support and facilitate good relationships. We thus adopt a stance of cautious openness toward this technology and advocate the development of a research agenda for the positive use of QR technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses a concern about the impact of rapid improvements in enhancement technology on the quality of human life, rapid obsolescence. The threat of obsolescence arises whenever technology undergoes rapid change and development. The author notes that the pursuit of enhancement does not necessarily lead to the endorsement of the hyper-instrumentalist ethos and it may be possible to embrace human obsolescence and human enhancement.

Themeaningof an utterance is oftenenrichedby the pragmatic context in which it is uttered. This is because in ordinary conversations we routinely and uncontroversially compress what we say, safe in the knowledge that those interpreting us will ‘add in’ the content we intend to communicate. Does the same thing hold true in the case of legal utterances like ‘This constitution protects the personal rights of the citizen’ or ‘the parliament shall have the power to lay and collect taxes’? This article addresses this question from the perspective of the constitutional originalist—the person who holds that the meaning of a constitutional text isfixedat some historical moment. In doing so, it advances four theses. First, it argues that every originalist theory is committed to some degree of pragmatic enrichment, the debate is about how much (enrichment thesis). Second, that in determining which content gets ‘added in’, originalists typically hold to a common knowledge standard for enrichment, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding (common knowledge thesis). Third, that the common knowledge standard for enrichment is deeply flawed (anti-CK thesis). And fourth, that all of this leads us to a thin theory of original constitutional meaning—similar to that defended by Jack Balkin and Ronald Dworkin—not for moral reasons but for strictly semantic ones (thinness thesis). Although some of the theses are extant in the literature, this article tries to defend them in a novel and perspicuous way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the need for the biomedical epistemic enhancements. It states the concept of common good justification (CGJ) to develop the enhancement technologies. It highlights the concept of cognitive enhancement, which any biomedical enhancement targeted at improving the faculties humans use to organize and process information, including enhancement of perception, memory and reasoning.

The article focuses on the article "If I Could Just Stop Loving You: Anti-Love Biotechnology and the Ethics of a Chemical Breakup" by Brian D. Earp et al. In the article the author offers his opinions on several points which are raised in Earp et al.'s article and on instances in which it could be ethically acceptable to use anti-love biotechnology.