Christopher Register

Human brain organoids (HBOs) are three-dimensional structures derived from human stem cells that model aspects of brain development and function, offering potentially unprecedented opportunities for studying neurological disorders and for developing treatments. This consensus paper presents recommendations from the Asia Pacific Neuroethics Working Group, developed through interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, bioethicists, philosophers, and legal scholars who convened in Singapore in November 2024. We provide a comprehensive analysis of the ethical, legal, and sociocultural dimensions of HBO research, addressing both current realities and future possibilities. The paper examines key ethical considerations, including the potential moral status of HBOs, particularly regarding sentience and consciousness, while identifying and dispelling common misconceptions and “ethical red herrings” arising from sensationalized portrayals. We analyze consent frameworks for cell donation, privacy concerns, dual-use risks, and questions of distributive justice. Legal challenges are explored, including the categorical ambiguity of HBOs within existing regulatory frameworks, intellectual property issues, and cross-border inconsistencies in standards. Sociocultural perspectives emphasize the importance of public understanding, cross-cultural engagement, and empirical research on diverse community attitudes toward HBO research. In our recommendations, we advocate for evidence-based ethical discussions, anticipatory frameworks addressing potential future developments, contextualized analysis comparing HBOs to related experimental models, robust informed consent processes, proportionate responses to consciousness concerns, development of adaptive regulatory frameworks, responsible science communication to manage public expectations, and sustained interdisciplinary collaboration. We emphasize a balanced approach that promotes scientific innovation while maintaining rigorous ethical oversight, recognizing HBOs’ significant potential for advancing neuroscience and medicine. This represents the first comprehensive ethical framework for HBO research from the Asia Pacific region, helping to establish foundational principles for responsible development of this rapidly advancing field.

We first give reasons for an attitude-dependent view of personal identity on which an AI system’s identity conditions are determined by its pattern of self-concern. We show that this view has important implications for the moral obligations we would have to AI moral patients. Self-concern, we contend, could also be used to predict, explain, and manipulate AI’s self-interested behavior in safety-relevant ways. The role that self-concern could play for AI identity, rights and safety generates desiderata on what a self-concern attitude should be like. To meet these desiderata, we argue that self-concern is a belief like state that represents oneself and has a distinctive functional role involving affect, motivation, and evaluation, ruling out sub-personal and desire-like self-representations. Finally, we explore how mechanistic interpretability and behavioral methods can be combined to measure self-concern in language models. Our argument suggests that a scientific understanding of language model self-concern is not only a crucial missing piece for debates on AI identity, rights, and safety, but also empirically tractable.

This paper argues that interactions with chatbots are a form of engaging with fictional characters; so, by comparing chatbots with novels and video games as mediums of fictional engagement, we can gain a clearer understanding of who, if anyone, is responsible when users’ interactions with chatbots lead to self-harm or harm to others. We explore the differences between novels, video games, and chatbots across four dimensions: the degree of creators’ control over the content and user experience, the nature of the fictional world, the type of engagement each medium fosters, and the structure of the engagement experience. We take a minimal account of what it takes to be morally responsible and consider how responsibility can be assigned when engagement with fictional worlds results in harm caused to or by users. We argue that because AI companies have some control over chatbots after public release, and because they can monitor user engagement, they are morally responsible when chatbot use leads to harm, even if they can’t perfectly control chatbots’ outputs. In the last section, we point to what AI companies can do to mitigate chatbots’ negative influence on users.

Artificial intelligence (AI) agents such as chatbots and personal AI assistants are increasingly popular. These technologies raise new privacy concerns beyond those posed by other AI systems or information technologies. For example, anthropomorphic features of AI chatbots may invite users to disclose more information with these systems than they would otherwise, especially when users interact with chatbots in relationship-like ways. In this paper, we aim to develop a framework for assessing the distinctive privacy ramifications of AI agents, especially as humans begin to interact with them in relationship-like ways. In particular, we draw from prominent theories of privacy and results from human relational psychology to better understand how AI agents may affect human behavior and the flow of personal information. We then assess how these effects could bear on eight distinct values of privacy, such as autonomy, the value of forming and maintaining relationships, security from harm, and more.

We may create artificial intelligence (AI) systems that matter morally for their own sake and thus are moral patients. In that case, we would have reasons to treat them well and avoid treating them badly. How we should treat AI moral patients depends in part on how they are to be individuated, that is, how they should be counted and identified, at a time and over time. If we don’t know how to individuate them, then we won’t know how we should treat them. In turn, we face several moral risks. After describing four types of moral risks posed by the individuation question, I discuss why individuating AI patients is harder than individuating human persons, diagnosing why existing theories of personal identity do not address these risks.

The current revival of interest in classic psychedelics and other psychoactives such as ketamine and MDMA, coupled with changes to their regulatory status in many jurisdictions, necessitates rigorous ethical guidelines both within and beyond clinical and scientific contexts. This paper examines crucial ethical, philosophical, and policy considerations needed to ensure psychedelic use across various settings remains equitable, beneficial, consensual, and safe, with appropriate accountability mechanisms for addressing potential harms. We seek to broaden the lens beyond the medical model of psychedelics to include potentially valuable non-medical applications that could benefit individuals, communities, and society. With popular interest in psychedelics growing outside of therapeutic and research settings, there is a need to determine which aspects of any proffered guidelines, or underlying principles, should be applied similarly across contexts and in what ways there should be flexibility and/or context-sensitivity in their interpretation or application. In developing such guidelines, we suggest the “treatment versus enhancement” distinction – and associated debates familiar from bioethics and philosophy of medicine – requires renewed attention. We argue that neglecting non-medical and broad scientific use cases for psychedelics may have important implications for a range of ethical issues surrounding psychedelic use and research, including concerns about psychedelic hype and exceptionalism (both positive and negative), therapeutic touch, informed consent, data-gathering, and balancing access and safety. We conclude with suggestions for future directions in research and policy in the burgeoning area of psychedelic bioethics, stressing the importance of incorporating the perspectives of a diversity of stakeholders and fostering cross-sector collaboration.

A person's body is extended in space, and parts of their body occupy spatial regions. In that way, the body has a dimension of breadth in space. Yet, there is another, less appreciated dimension of the body: its depth. Roughly speaking, the depth of the body is the level of abstraction of its parts. Characteristically, and in particular for moral purposes, the depth of the body is rather high-level. Low-level objects and properties, such as individual molecules, do not really fall within the purview of the moral body--the body as it figures in various morally significant rights and interests. As I will argue, the depth of the body becomes more salient and relevant when people come to have partly digital embodiments, such as when brain-computer interfaces are integrated into their bodily processes. The dimension of depth, it turns out, is crucial for properly understanding the moral significance of brain-computer interfaces. Here, I develop a theory of depth to complement existing theories of the body and use it to improve our understanding of the purview of bodily rights and interests.

Psychologists and philosophers have recently argued that our concepts of ‘person’ or ‘self’ are plural. Some have argued that we should also adopt a corresponding pluralism about the metaphysics of the self. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, I sketch and motivate an approach to personal identity that supports the inference from facts about how we think about the self to facts about the nature of the self. On the proposed view, the self-concept partly determines the nature of the self. This approach provides new justification for the recent empirical turn in the philosophy of personal identity. Second, I argue that closer examination reveals that the empirical evidence does not in fact support pluralism about the self. Instead, the evidence points toward a model of the self-concept as a complex web of attitudes that is disposed toward integration and unity. I ultimately suggest that this unifying disposition of the self-concept helps ground the existence of a singular self.

Psychologists and philosophers have recently argued that our concepts of ‘person’ or ‘self’ are plural. Some have argued that we should also adopt a corresponding pluralism about the metaphysics of the self. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, I sketch and motivate an approach to personal identity that supports the inference from facts about how we think about the self to facts about the nature of the self. On the proposed view, the self-concept partly determines the nature of the self. This approach provides new justification for the recent empirical turn in the philosophy of personal identity. Second, I argue that closer examination reveals that the empirical evidence does not in fact support pluralism about the self. Instead, the evidence points toward a model of the self-concept as a complex web of attitudes that is disposed toward integration and unity. I ultimately suggest that this unifying disposition of the self-concept helps ground the existence of a singular self.

Hot-cold empathy gaps are a pervasive phenomena wherein one’s predictions about others tend to skew ‘in the direction’ of one’s own current visceral states. For instance, when one predicts how hungry someone else is, one’s prediction will tend to reflect one’s own current hunger state. These gaps also obtain intrapersonally, when one attempts to predict what one oneself would do at a different time. In this paper, we do three things: We draw on empirical evidence to argue that so-called hot-cold empathy gaps arise when one projects one’s own current state into a simulation about another. Second, we argue that this process does not typically confer knowledge, even when the predictions it produces happen to be accurate. Third, we suggest that these results can be used to develop a challenge for L.A. Paul's view that authentic action sometimes requires subjective knowledge of one’s own values and how these values relate to relevant outcomes. We then sketch an alternative view of the epistemic grounds of authenticity, one on which authenticity requires a kind of understanding. The relevant form of understanding can be achieved by subjective knowledge but can also be achieved elsewise, such as through testimony from a close friend about what one values.