Posts

What is cognition?

“Cognition” is one of those terms that we use a lot, but which is actually rather hard to define. The question of what constitutes cognition looms large in debates about whether other organisms, besides humans, do it or have it. Most people are willing to grant that many animals are in some way cognitive, but what about simpler critters, like nematodes or jellyfish? Are they capable of cognition? For that matter, what about bacteria or plants? Can they cognize? How about artificial systems, like large language models? Does cognition require a nervous system? Does it necessarily involve “thinking”? Or some kind of “mental” activity? Once you start defining it in that rather circular fashion, you quickly realise we don’t have good definitions of “thinking” or “mental” either!   Is cognition just “what cognitive scientists study”? Or are they only studying a particular version of it – the kind of cognition we see in humans? Maybe there is a less anthropocentric way to define i...

Eugenics, statistical hubris, and unknowable unknowns in human genetics

Image
A new paper just out in Nature , by Peter Visscher and colleagues (including bio-ethicist Julian Salvulescu) explores the idea of polygenic genome editing of human embryos to reduce the risk of common diseases. This is, to say the least, a controversial idea, and a decidedly fantastical one. The authors present the results of statistical modelling which suggests that editing a small number of risk variants in each embryo’s genome could dramatically reduce the risk of a number of common disorders. But there are good reasons (lots of them) to doubt the assumptions on which this modelling is based and to have serious concerns about possibly deleterious unintended consequences of such interventions. I co-wrote a commentary on the article with geneticist Shai Carmi and law professor and bio-ethicist Hank Greely, outlining some of the limitations of the modelling and our concerns over the dangers of the proposed approach. I’ll expand on those points here.   First, the development...

The Justice Algorithm

Image
Why do we need judges? Why do we leave important decisions to flawed, biased, distracted, even corruptible human beings? Couldn’t A.I. do this job so much better now? So much more cleanly, precisely – without all that messy, human subjectivity? Couldn’t we just submit the evidence to a great big algorithm to determine guilt or innocence? Or, if that involves too much ambiguity, at least to determine appropriate sentencing, taking all appropriate factors into consideration? Shouldn’t there be a single right answer that can be reached in each case?   After all, we have, in most jurisdictions, a constitution that lays out our moral and societal values and guiding legal principles. Of course, these aren’t specific to any situation, so we also have a set of laws that dictate very clearly what’s allowed and what isn’t. Admittedly, we keep having to make new ones to keep up with a changing world, but they’re as comprehensive and up-to-date as our political systems allow. We know what...