Artificial Intelligence Review(2024) 57:133
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10769-4

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI
Michele Farisco1,2 · G. Baldassarre3 · E. Cartoni3 · A. Leach4 · M.A. Petrovici5 ·A. Rosemann4,6 · A. Salles1,7 · B. Stahl4,8 · S. J. van Albada9,10
Accepted: 18 April 2024
© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Despite its successes, to date Artificial Intelligence (AI) is still characterized by a numberof shortcomings with regards to different application domains and goals. These limitations are arguably both conceptual (e.g., related to the underlying theoretical models, suchas symbolic vs.connectionist), and operational (e.g., related to robustness and ability togeneralize). Biologically inspired AI, and more specifically brain-inspired AI, promises toprovide further biological aspects beyond those that are already traditionally included inAI, making it possible to assess and possibly overcome some of its present shortcomings.
This article examines some conceptual, technical, and ethical issues raised by the development and use of brain-inspired AI. Against this background, the paper asks whether there
is anything ethically unique about brain-inspired AI. The aim of the paper is to introduce
a method that has a heuristic nature and that can be applied to identify and address the
ethical issues arising from brain-inspired AI (and from AI more generally). The conclusion
resulting from the application of this method is that, compared to traditional AI, braininspired AI raises new foundational ethical issues and some new practical ethical issues,and exacerbates some of the issues raised by traditional AI.
Keywords Brain-inspired AI · NeuroAI · AI ethics · Philosophy of AI · Neuromorphic
computing

1 Introduction
Because intelligence is a biological phenomenon, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is biologicallyinspired in its very essence. Nevertheless, AI may mimic biology to varying degrees.In
some cases, AI research might be directly and extensively inspired by biology in generaland by the brain in particular. In other cases it might attempt to go beyond biological instantiations of intelligence to implement mechanisms and types of intelligence not present inbiological systems. Still, the mutual relationship between neuroscience and AI research has
been important for advancing both approaches (Hassabis et al. 2017; Macpherson et al.

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13

133

Page 2 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

2021; Summerfield 2023) and has been recently indicated as crucial for the next-generation
AI (Zador et al. 2023).
At the outset of AI research in the early 1950s, “the only known systems carrying out
complex computations were biological nervous systems” (Ullman 2019). Accordingly, AI
researchers productively used knowledge about the brain as a source of inspiration whenseeking to create intelligent systems. This is true especially for AI paradigms alternative
to the symbolic approach (“Good Old-Fashioned AI” or GOFAI), which was prevalent at
the beginning of AI research and that aimed to reproduce the logical aspects of intelligenceat a high functional level while neglecting the underlying brain mechanisms. In particular, research on artificial neural networks (ANNs) took inspiration from the mechanismsof brain functioning, such as the possibility of processing information based on multiple
simple units similar to neurons, and their all-or-none signalling (Kleene 1956; McCulloch
and Pitts 1943). At the same time, brain-inspired AI continued to inject new ways of thinking about how the brain works, in particular about neural computation (Saxe et al. 2020),
suggesting new mechanisms for neural network models, alongside new research strategies
in neuroscience.
This pattern has repeated multiple times, for example leading to the development of Deep
Neural Networks (DNNs), which involve architectures inspired by the hierarchical structureof perceptual cortices, and currently yield state-of-the-art performance in several Machine
Learning (ML) areas. While most principles underlying DNNs are grounded in early neuralnetwork models, at present we are witnessing a significant growth in their potential andapplications, mainly owing to the increased availability of data (“Big Data”) and the possibility of using specialised hardware such as Graphics Processing Units (GPUs). Many
researchers believe that DNNs offer new possibilities for a mutual collaboration between
neuroscience and AI insofar as they learn through sensory signals that are processed in waysthat have some resemblance to sensory processing in the brain. This is true especially, but
not exclusively, for unsupervised learning and reinforcement learning (Hassabis et al. 2017).
The increased collaboration between neuroscience and AI could result in further improvement of AI, possibly allowing it to overcome some of its current limitations. As mentioned
above, the reverse is also possible, and AI can lead to a deeper understanding of the brain(Richards et al., 2019). Still, compared to current AI models, brains have advantages suchas a greater capacity for generalisation and for learning from fewer examples (George et al.
2020), and a much lower power consumption (Attwell and Laughlin 2001).
Biological inspiration is not limited to human brains and cognitive reasoning: it may alsocome from organisms, processes, and phenomena occurring at different spatial and temporalscales (Floreano and Mattiussi 2008). As Floreano and Mattiussi claim, evolutionary, cellular, neural, developmental, immune, behavioral, and collective systems are some of therelevant sources of information.
Notwithstanding their great potential, biologically inspired AI in general and braininspired AI in particular are not immune to criticism. As the history of science and technology shows, the usefulness of deriving inspiration from biology cannot be taken for granted(AA.VV., 2012; Crick 1989), and it is theoretically possible for AI to develop along lines
not consistent with brain architecture and functioning. Indeed, AI algorithms and techniques
are often developed with the aim of solving particular tasks and only later are they comparedwith the brain (George et al. 2020; Gershman 2023; Lillicrap et al. 2020).

13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 3 of 27

133

Calling for AI to emulate the brain thus risks being reductive and limiting dependingon the goals pursued, as AI may fruitfully follow directions different from biology. Taking
the brain as the privileged source of inspiration for further development of AI may present
problems such as replicating the brain’s limitations and biases in the development of AI.
Conversely, assuming that AI could inform a better understanding of the brain raises issues
as well. Some authors note that the relevance of DNNs for neuroscience is limited due tothe characteristics of current approaches which lack sufficiently constrained learning rules,
regularization principles, or architectural features (Hasson et al. 2020; Richards et al., 2019;
Saxe et al. 2020). Current DNN strategies are thus limited in inspiring empirically testable
hypotheses for brain research.
This article explores the conceptual, technical, and ethical issues arising during the development and use of biologically inspired AI with a focus on brain-inspired AI. The analysis
results from the unique collaborative work of researchers from different disciplines in the
EU-funded Human Brain Project. The research question underlying the ethical analysis is:is there anything ethically unique about brain-inspired AI? The paper starts with a discussion about biologically inspired and brain-inspired AI. Next, it introduces a method for the
analysis of the practical ethical issues arising from AI in general and brain-inspired AI inparticular. This is followed by an illustration of the method through two case studies (natural
language processing and continual learning/context understanding). The article closes withan analysis of the fundamental ethical issues arising from brain-inspired AI, with two main
foci: concepts and goals.
We propose the combination of two ethical approaches, fundamental and practical, inorder to identify emerging ethical issues, prioritize their assessment, anticipate their impact
on society, and maximize the benefits derived from brain-inspired AI.
The conclusion is that, compared to traditional AI, brain-inspired AI can raise qualitatively new foundational and practical ethical issues, and it can exacerbate some of the ethical issues raised by traditional AI.

2 Biologically inspired and brain-inspired AI: definition andphilosophical reflections
2.1 Definition of biologically and brain-inspired AI
In its broadest sense, biological inspiration refers to the compatibility of AI with current
knowledge in biology, particularly in neurobiology. Such a general description, while useful for the sake of introducing the concept, is not sufficiently constrained to be technicallyoperationalizable. More specifically, an AI system is biologically inspired when its architecture and functioning include biological constraints that make specific parts of the system
biologically realistic. Importantly, a biologically inspired AI system does not necessarily
fully emulate or replicate the reference biological system, since different levels of biologicalrealism are possible. Even if in theory biological inspiration can come from many different
biological systems, the main trend today is to define biological realism of AI with specificreference to known biological principles of the brain, in particular mammalian and humanbrains. Of course, there is no such thing as the brain as brains vary substantially between
both species and individuals of the same species. Furthermore, different organizational lev-

13

133

Page 4 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

els and regions of the same brain have different properties. The differences between brains
have various causes. Roughly speaking, brain differences between species arise from evolutionary factors. Brain differences between individuals of the same species can be explainedby the interplay of genetic and epigenetic factors (Changeux et al. 1973, 2021), further
developmental factors (Bonduriansky and Day 2018), and factors reflecting the interaction
with the environment like learning, nutrition, and disease. Moreover, the brain is a complex
organ involving multi-level organization, including molecular, cellular, microcircuit, macrocircuit, and behavioural levels (Amunts et al. 2019). It is likely that not all these levels areequally relevant to the development of brain-inspired AI.
This has three implications in particular: (1) any general operational principle of thebrain that we identify is the result of a statistical analysis or selection; (2) selection means
choice, and this raises the issue of the criteria used to make the choice; (3) it is necessary to
clarify what level of the brain is used as reference for brain-inspired AI. In short, biologicalinspiration conceived as a set of target features from the brain needs to be contextualized
and specified. To illustrate: biological inspiration can be achieved by emulating a particularbiological mechanism such as the spike-timing-dependent plasticity observed in biological synapses (Bi and Poo 1998, 2001; Gerstner et al. 1996; Schemmel et al. 2006; Song,
Miller and Abbott 2000), or by using a biologically constrained model, such as the HodgkinHuxley model of neuronal action potentials (Hodgkin and Huxley 1952). It is also likelythat more precise and technically relevant definitions of biological inspiration depend on
the specific AI technique considered, and that there is a continuum of possible technologies
with different levels of biological inspiration. These different levels are characterized by
specific limitations and may raise different types of issues, including ethical issues.
As mentioned above, the biological brain, and more specifically the human brain, is
usually uncritically assumed as the standard reference, either explicitly or implicitly. Thistendency is evident, for instance, in these words by Jeff Hawkins: “From the moment I
became interested in studying the brain, I felt that we would have to understand how it
works before we could create intelligent machines. This seemed obvious to me, as the brain
is the only thing that we know of that is intelligent” (Hawkins 2021). Yet, what seems clear
to Hawkins and many others is actually not uncontested, both because it is not obvious that
biological inspiration should be limited to the (human) brain (Floreano and Mattiussi 2008)and because it is not obvious that biological inspiration should be taken as a necessary
requirement for improving AI. That it is not obvious that AI should be inspired by the brain
is related to the fact that some functional features of the brain might reflect physiologicalconstraints rather than optimal computational implementations. For instance, spikes themselves might not be necessary in silico, because copper makes for a better signal transmission substrate than cell membranes. Also, post-synaptic potentials (PSPs) do not have todecay gradually, because rectangular PSPs might lead to better functional performance of a
network, but are simply more difficult to achieve with the electrophysiology of biologicalsynapses.

2.2 Differences between current AI and the human brain
When compared to the human brain, current AI reveals a number of differences and limitations with regards to different domains and goals (Zador et al. 2023). These limitations arearguably of two main kinds: technical and conceptual. The technical limitations depend on

13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 5 of 27133

the current technological stage of AI and are likely to be reduced and possibly overcome
through further progress of knowledge and emerging technology. The conceptual limitations
depend on the AI paradigms used, so overcoming them may require revised or new paradigms. To illustrate, present AI is still narrow, that is, it works for specific tasks in particulardomains for which it is programmed and trained, and fails if environmental conditions aredifferent from those in the training context (Marcus and Davis 2019). In this respect, its
impressive success in specific applications is not yet translated into the capacity for solving
broader and more general tasks. For some AI systems, this limitation might not be intrinsic
but rather due to the time needed to adapt to new conditions and to learn how to behave
in new environments, analogously to what happens with humans. Still, a consequence ofsuch constraints is that even if omnipresent in our day-to-day lives, the applicability of AI
in the real world and its related impact are still limited. Likewise, AI reliability has further
development potential, for both technical and conceptual reasons. Indeed, some researchers
argue for new approaches and paradigm changes in current AI (Marcus and Davis 2019),
outlining that one of the main challenges for AI is building learning machines that are as
flexible and robust as the biological brain and that have the same capacity for generalization(Sinz et al. 2019). Moreover, in contrast to AI, which at present can interact with a limited
subset of variables within a contextualized environment, biological systems respond to awide variety of stimuli over long periods of time, and their responses alter the environmentand subsequent responses, giving rise to a kind of systemic action-reaction cycle (AA.VV.,
2012). Other relevant abilities of the human brain that current AI systems are not able tofully replicate are “multi-tasking, learning with minimal supervision, […] all accomplishedwith high efficiency and low energy cost”, as well as the ability to communicate via natural
language (Poo 2018).
One possible strategy to improve the performance of current AI along the dimensions
considered above is “to introduce structural and operational principles of the brain into
the design of computing algorithms and devices” (Poo 2018). Relevant results have beenobtained through neuromorphic systems, some of which show important advantages including increased computational power per unit of energy consumed (Cramer et al. 2022; Esser
et al. 2016; Göltz et al. 2021a, b; Park, Lee and Jeon 2019) and robust learning (Buhler et al.
2017; Frenkel and Indiveri 2022; Renner et al. 2021; Wunderlich et al. 2019).
Another illustration comes from recent research that considers the biological feature that
we are not born as clean slates, but already have a brain structure optimized by evolution forlearning from our experiences. For instance, innate aspects of neural network structure may
already gear networks toward effective task performance (Stöckl et al. 2022), and allow thegeneralization of learning within families of tasks (Bellec et al. 2020). Furthermore, cortical
network models have been used to infer different possible learning rules (Zappacosta et al.
2018), including in spiking networks (Jordan et al. 2021). The spiking feature would add
biological plausibility to most current AI systems, as would the inclusion of layer-specificconnectivity as found in the cerebral cortex, including in particular layer-specific interactions between feedforward and feedback signals across cortical areas (Markov et al. 2014;
Rao and Ballard 1999).
Yet the implementation of the strategies above is not simple, and the choice itself oftaking biology, and specifically the brain, as a reference standard to calibrate and further
develop AI systems needs a sound justification that goes beyond the acknowledgment thatbrains are the only thinking objects we are aware of. In fact, this does not a priori exclude

13

133

Page 6 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

the possibility of an AI regulated by different principles. Also, bio-inspired AI itself may
outperform biology because it can profit from “better” (for example, faster) hardware (Billaudelle et al. 2021; Göltz et al. 2021a, b; Kungl et al. 2019b).

2.3 The risk of putting too much emphasis on emulating the brain
Focusing on general AI, some researchers have recently argued that biological inspirationand neuroscientific constraints should be regarded as strict requirements for AI until weunderstand the nature of intelligence (Hole and Ahmad 2021). In other words, since we do
not yet understand the nature of intelligence in itself, we should take inspiration from themain example of intelligence we have in nature, that is, from the brain. This argument seems
to put too much emphasis on the need to define or explain natural intelligence mechanisms
before producing AI. This point was already criticized by Turing, who famously elaborated
his imitation game to show that priority should be given to the operationalization of intelligence rather than to its theoretical definition (Dietrich et al. 2021; Turing 1950).
Philosophically, postulating that biological inspiration and resemblance to the humanbrain in particular should be paradigmatic for AI suggests an implicit endorsement of a formof anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism, which are both evidence of our intellectual
self-centeredness and of our limitation in thinking beyond what we are (or what we think
we are).
The debate around the biological plausibility of backpropagation is illustrative of thepossibility of achieving results similar to biological intelligence by using principles that are
not fully biologically compatible. Despite the fact that exact backpropagation is unlikely tohappen in the brain (Crick 1989)(but see Haider et al. 2021; Lillicrap et al. 2016; Lillicrap
et al. 2020; Millidge et al. 2022; Payeur et al. 2021; Pozzi et al. 2020; Sacramento et al.
2018; Song, Xu and Lafferty 2021 for a more informed discussion on this point), AI systems
using backpropagation have achieved results comparable to and even better than humans in
specific tasks (Pozzi et al. 2020).
From an operational point of view, the question of how to measure biological inspiration
also arises. It seems that the quantification of biological inspiration depends on the domain
and the brain level taken into consideration, so an AI system can be more or less biologically inspired depending on the particular level of its architecture to which we refer, andon the particular aspect of brain architecture and dynamics/physiology that inspired the AI
system. To illustrate, it is possible to assess the biological realism of an ANN by checking if
and how it abstracts from the behaviour of biological neurons. While this strategy might besufficient to conclude that ANNs are biologically realistic from an operational point of view,
it does not exclude that ANNs are not biologically realistic at another level, for instance at
the computational level, since it is possible to implement different computations with thesame underlying neuronal behaviour. Similarly, it is possible to produce the same network
activity with different circuitry (Prinz et al. 2004), the latter point being very relevant forneuromorphic systems (Petrovici et al. 2014).

13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 7 of 27

133

3 A method for the ethics of brain-inspired AI
For the sake of our analysis, ethics can be understood as the attempt to systematize andjustify concepts of right and wrong, and to clarify the implications of these concepts forbehaviour. We pursue this general goal through reflection on both fundamental/foundational
and practical issues: the discrimination between right and wrong is justified by and relieson the identification of relevant values and principles. as well as on the definition of key
notions like moral subject, moral reasoning, and moral action, among others.The definitional task is central in fundamental (or foundational) ethics that deals with the foundation,
nature, and evolution of moral thought and judgment, and which can be distinguished frompractical ethics that deals with concrete issues (e.g., ethical assessment of particular fields)(Evers 2007).
Accordingly, we can broadly distinguish two main kinds of ethical issues arising fromAI, including brain-inspired AI: foundational (i.e., concerning both the justification ofbrain-inspired AI and its impact on how we think about fundamental moral notions) andpractical (i.e., concerning the impact and implications of brain-inspired AI on our dailylife). The first kind of issues involves theoretical analysis, while the second kind of issues
involves mainly applied analysis, that is, the use of ethical theory to identify and address thepractical issues related to the use of AI. Below, we begin by introducing a method for the
analysis of the practical issues raised by AI and show how it can be applied by focusing on
two case studies. We then present a foundational ethical analysis of key concepts and goals
underlying brain-inspired AI.

3.1 Practical ethics of brain-inspired AI
Generally speaking, the practical issues raised by a technology can be intrinsic or extrinsic.
Intrinsic issues are inseparable from how the technology itself works. Extrinsic issues arethose emerging from a technology’s deployment and use in different contexts, including
those raised by the resulting relationship between humans and the relevant technology, suchtechnology’s impacts on society and the legitimacy of its intended goals.
We propose that the practical issues arising from biologically inspired AI, including
brain-inspired AI, can be organized in terms of (at least) the following main levels:● Operational, related to how AI works;● Instrumental, related to how people use AI;● Relational, related to how people see AI and to the resulting psychological and metaphysical human-AI relationship1;● Societal, related to the social and economic costs and consequences of the development
and use of AI.
Importantly, the distinction between these levels is mainly for the sake of analysis: in practice the same factor may appear on different levels, for instance in terms of its “proximal”
and “distal” effects. To illustrate, brain-inspired AI may have the proximal positive effectof needing less energy which may lead to the distal effect of cheaper systems and a conse1

The way people perceive AI has an immediate impact on their own self-understanding and also on the way
people conceive their nature in relation to the nature of AI.

13

133

Page 8 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

quent more democratic access to it. More specifically, neuromorphic architectures can benefit from reduced power consumption compared to their more conventional counterparts, if
they inherit relevant aspects of brain structure and dynamics. For example, the characteristic
in-memory computing aspect of brain networks directly circumvents the notorious vonNeumann bottleneck (Indiveri and Liu 2015). Furthermore, spike latency codes may also
provide benefits over conventional rate-based communication (Göltz et al. 2021a, b), but
their scalability to large-scale applications still needs to be explored. And, specifically foranalog neuromorphic substrates, the physical emulation of relevant dynamics as opposed totheir simulation by an arithmetic logic unit can also yield benefits in terms of energy consumption and speed (Billaudelle et al. 2020).
Due to these advantages, large-scale brain-inspired AI substrates have the potential ofbeing operable at a significantly reduced cost compared to conventional GPU clusters, thus
democratizing the ownership and use of competitive AI hardware. Their reduced power
consumption also implies a reduced carbon footprint, with evident benefits for the planet’s
climate. Furthermore, by being more affordable, they could place the relevant computational resources directly into the hands of the users, thus obviating the need for transmitting
sensitive information to AI service providers in the cloud (Haider et al. 2021).
Also, the identified levels should not be seen as confined to biologically plausible technologies. The discussion of the ethical aspects of AI can be traced back to the beginningof digital and potentially autonomous systems (Wiener 1954). It has developed alongsidetechnical progress (Dreyfus 1972; Whitby 1991) and gained prominence in recent years
when the spectacular successes of machine learning became clear. There are various ways ofapproaching the ethics of AI (Coeckelbergh 2020; Dignum 2019; Stahl 2021) which include
the distinction between foundational and practical and the four levels proposed here.
Operational issues of AI are those that have their basis in the very nature of AI. The
prominent focus of established discussions of AI ethics are current machine learning technologies. These need large datasets for training and validating models. Where such datasets contain personal information, an operational issue would be the intrinsic threat of dataprotection violations (EDPS 2020; Kaplan and Haenlein 2019). Another operational issue
is raised by the nature of neural networks used in much machine learning, because they arecomplex, opaque, and often not open to scrutiny, which leads to the recurrent issue of theneed for explainable AI (Friedrich et al. 2022; Yeung 2018).
Instrumental concerns may be grounded on these operational questions and touch on how
AI is used. One of the most prominent (and widely discussed) examples of this is the problem of biases and discrimination. Bias in machine learning can result from the replication ofbias in social relationships that is reflected in the data and hence in machine learning models. Thoughtless use of these models may lead to the replication of bias in diverse contexts,
for example in job selection and law enforcement (Birhane 2021; Team, 2018).
Societal issues typically arise less from the nature of AI and more from the way AI innovations influence and shape existing socio-economic structures. Relevant concerns refer toeconomic injustice and unfair distribution of risks and benefits (Walton and Nayak 2021;
Zuboff 2019). Different issues arise when AI is inappropriately used to influence democratic
processes or contribute to power concentration (Nemitz 2018; Parliament 2020). Further
examples include AI’s environmental impact (Nishant et al. 2020) and its potential to change
the future of warfare (Brundage et al. 2018; Richards, Brockmann and Boulanini 2020).

13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 9 of 27

133

Relational issues, which concern the ways in which AI changes the way we, as humans,see ourselves and whether it might alter our relationship with other humans, with technology, and with the world at large also have a prominent history. Addressing these issues hasoften led to speculative discussions about the potential of future AI, which are linked toconcepts such as transhumanism, singularity, or superintelligence (Bostrom 2014). On a
more immediate level, insofar as AI can serve as a metaphor for thinking about humans,changes to the capabilities of AI can change what characteristics we ascribe to ourselves
and to each other.
We now focus on how these issues are raised in the context of brain-inspired AI.
Brain-inspired AI arguably promises new benefits and raises new risks for society (Doyaet al. 2022). While there are some practical ethical issues raised by traditional AI that might
be exacerbated by brain-inspired AI, others seem more specific to it. For example, intrinsic
limitations and shortcomings of the brain might lead to specific practical ethical issues if
somehow replicated by brain-inspired AI, as described in Table 1.
At the operational level, brain-inspired AI presents a number of potential benefits andrisks. Among the possible benefits, brain-inspired AI has the potential to lead to more environmentally friendly systems because it may require less power than more traditional AI.
This potential reduction derives from optimized functional architectures, including simplifications of the computing procedures and a minimization of memory access (Liu, Yu, Chai
2021). Furthermore, in many cases neuromorphic hardware shows increased computational
power per unit of energy consumed (Cramer et al. 2022; Esser et al. 2016; Göltz et al.
2021a, b; Park, Lee and Jeon 2019). From a more general perspective, the brain notably
uses much less energy than current computing systems (Attwell and Laughlin 2001), sothat it is reasonable to take inspiration from it in order to optimize the energy consumptionof AI. The reason for the high energy efficiency of the brain is still to be clarified, but it islikely that emulating some of its features (e.g., connectivity, dynamics, or algorithms) might
help us to improve the energy efficiency of present hardware. Another possible strategy forsaving energy through brain-inspired AI derives from analog neuromorphics specifically: byemulating relevant brain dynamics rather than simulating them (e.g., discharging a capacitor
versus digitally calculating an exponential decay), one can gain energy efficiency and speed(Göltz et al. 2021b; Billaudelle et al. 2021).
Another possible benefit at the operational level is more rapid optimization of systems
that are more strongly constrained than traditional AI (i.e., with a more restricted space ofsolutions for optimization).
On the other hand, brain-inspired AI has a limited capacity to emulate the brain because
it necessarily refers to a specific level of brain organization (e.g., cellular level) or to specific phenomena and mechanisms, ignoring or streamlining its relation to other lower orhigher levels (e.g., molecular or network level, respectively) or to other relevant phenomena
and mechanisms. Moreover, brain activity is not independent from bodily influences (e.g.,bodily activity seems to influence conscious perception (Park and Tallon-Baudry 2014) andconfidence in subjective perception (Allen et al. 2016), and the molecular environment andmetabolism regulate these brain-body couplings (Haydon and Carmignoto 2006; Jha andMorrison 2018; Petit and Magistretti 2016). This operational limitation raises the risk of
insufficient recognition of and flawed communication about the possibility of failure in fully
emulating the brain. That brain-inspired AI possibly fails to fully emulate the brain has
ethical implications because there is a tendency, especially in lay people, to conceive the

13

133

Page 10 of 27

Table 1 Practical ethical issues
potentially arising from braininspired AI

M. Farisco et al.
Potential benefits
Operational Level- More environmentallyfriendly systems, because
brain-inspired AI may requireless power than more traditional AI- More rapid optimization ofsystems that are more strongly
constrained than traditional
AI (i.e., with a more restricted space of solutions for
optimization)
Instrumental level
Potential benefits
Applicability to certain
domains for which traditional AI is less suited (e.g.,
because of energy- andlearning-constraints)
Relational level
Potential benefits
Possibility to inspire morepositive attitudes towards AI,
because users’ awareness ofthe ‘brain-inspired’ nature of
the AI systems they use maytrigger more favorable feelings
towards AI’s applications

Societal level
Potential benefits
Possibility of new, cheaper,and more democratic products,
including commercial applications, because brain-inspired
AI may need less energy andmay develop a broad domain
of applications

Potential risks- Limited capacity of brain-inspired
AI to emulate the brain, leading to
the risk of the insufficient recognition of this limitation and flawedcommunication about it- Limited possibility for developers to optimize brain-inspired AI,
because it may be more strongly
constrained than traditional AI and
there is the risk of a priori excluding factors that are crucial forachieving the desired goals
Potential risks
Risk of new kinds of brain-based
crimes, because brain-inspired
AI may significantly improve thetechnology-mediated understanding of brain features and eventuallylead to their exploitation (e.g., forbrain hacking)Potential risks- Risk of hyped perception andmisplaced trust in brain-inspired
AI, because of the risk of anthropomorphic attitudes and because of
the background view of the brain asa paradigm of efficiency and effectiveness combined with inadequate
recognition of and communication
about the limited capacity of braininspired AI to emulate the brain- Bewildering impact on ingrained
beliefs about human identity, particularly about human exceptionalism
Potential risks
Risk of increased concentrationof power in a few hands, becauseof both the advanced technology
required by brain-inspired AI and
its applications domain extendingthat of more traditional AI

brain as paradigmatic (i.e., as a model of efficiency and effectiveness). It is possible that thisview is projected onto brain-inspired AI if its above-mentioned limitation is not adequately
recognized and communicated to the public. In other words, an ethical problem arising fromthe limited capacity of brain-inspired AI to emulate the brain is the lack of explicit and faircommunication about this limitation. The tendency to assign human-like trustworthiness toLarge Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT is an illustration of this risk.

13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 11 of 27

133

The necessary selection of specific levels of brain organization as reference/target forbrain-inspired AI can also limit the possibility for humans to optimize the system if it fails toachieve its goals: such failure might be caused by the fact that achieving the goal in question
depends on factors (i.e., brain features) we are blind to because they were excluded by the
preliminary selection (e.g., AI might be emulating one level without including its relation
with other levels). In other words, if relevant aspects of brain organization or dynamics are
excluded a priori, and they are crucial for optimizing a specific function, then there is limited possibility for developers to optimize the system (i.e., to improve its capacity to achieve
the desired goal).
For example, it has been observed that it is useful for synapses to have access to multiple
variables, beyond mere pre- and postsynaptic activity. One such type of variable is the activity of dendritic compartments, which are represented in morphologically complex neuronmodels, but not in point neuron models. Thus, choosing the simpler (point) model might
impair the ability of a network to learn hierarchical representations (Haider et al. 2021;
Sacramento et al. 2018). Furthermore, morphologically complex neurons can implement
entire multilayer artificial neural networks (Beniaguev et al. 2021; Häusser and Mel 2003;
Poirazi et al. 2003).
Another illustration of the point above is the inclusion of short-term plasticity or cortical oscillations into the dynamics of a modeled stochastic network. Without these, as the
network learns to solve increasingly complex problems, it can become overly confident in
one solution and is impaired in its ability to consider alternative solutions (Korcsak-Gorzo
et al. 2022; Leng and Kakadiaris 2018).
A third example concerns the learning of time series, which relies on the presence of longenough transients in a network, often implemented by neuronal adaptation. If all specifictime constraints are shorter than the transients in the signals to be learned (i.e., if all memory
mechanisms are too short), learning becomes difficult or impossible (Bellec et al. 2020;
Maass et al. 2002).
At the instrumental level, brain-inspired AI promises applicability to certain domains
for which traditional AI is less suited because of the lack of necessary features, such asa sufficient capacity for online problem-solving and generalizability (i.e., the capacity tolearn on the fly and to adapt to contextual variables that are different from the training data).
While we are still limited in the ability to translate these capacities of the brain in AI systems, investing resources in trying to advance our knowledge of the brain’s principles andmechanisms underlying these capacities, and in developing AI systems inspired by thoseprinciples and mechanisms appears a promising strategy.
On the other hand, the features of AI that could make its deployment more widespreadand beneficial in some respects (like online problem solving) may have undesirable consequences if used for negative purposes, like fraudulent applications. In addition to therisks raised by traditional AI (e.g., security reduction, exploitation/violence, misuse/dual
use, reduction or loss of human agency), brain-inspired AI may raise additional risks ofbrain-based crimes, because brain-inspired AI may significantly improve the technologymediated understanding of brain features and eventually lead to their exploitation (e.g.,
for brain hacking, that is unauthorized access to and influence on subjective mental states/
operations).
At the relational level, since it is modeled on the (human) brain, brain-inspired AI caninspire more empathetic feelings and this can lead to more positive attitudes towards AI (i.e.,

13

133

Page 12 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

people are more willing to use AI) because of anthropomorphic tendencies. Consideringthat some cultures are still characterized by a form of technophobia (Weil and Rosen 1995),
awareness that AI is brain-inspired might diminish existing technophobic attitudes.
On the other hand, the anthropomorphic feelings raised by brain-inspired AI may causea misplaced trust in its capabilities as well as hype about its application, because of the
background view of the brain as a paradigm of efficiency and effectiveness combined withinadequate recognition of and communication about the limited capacity of brain-inspired
AI to emulate the brain. Furthermore, brain-inspired AI might be perceived as so close tohuman identity so as to have a bewildering impact on ingrained beliefs about the relationships between humans and machines. For instance, brain-inspired AI may be perceived as
further evidence that human exceptionalism is illusory. This risk might again create either
disproportionate expectations or fears about brain-inspired AI.
At the societal level, because of its potentially great energy efficiency and an impressive
ability to handle vast amounts of data (Mehonic and Kenyon 2022), brain-inspired AI has
the potential for leading to new as well as to cheaper systems and commercial products,
which may eventually result in more democratic and participative processes. For instance,brain-inspired AI may lead to new clinical tools accessible to an increased number of stakeholders because of reduced costs compared to analogous traditional AI solutions. Yet thelevel of scientific knowledge and the kind of technology necessary to develop brain-inspired
AI are so advanced compared to the technology available today that they raise the risk ofincreased concentration of power in a few hands, especially in the hands of tech companies
and investors, analogously to what is happening with Large Language Models (LLM). The
development of brain-inspired AI requires significant resources of different kinds, including
economic and human resources. Adequate financial investments, both private and public,
are necessary, and not all countries can afford such expenses, and some prefer to privilege other lines of research (Mehonic and Kenyon 2022). Furthermore, brain-inspired AI iscross-, multi-, and interdisciplinary, and it requires the collaboration of researchers from different fields. Not all public research institutions have the possibility to set up the necessary
collaborative groups, and it is possible that only economically strong private companies canafford the related costs. Similarly, the potentially new application domains of brain-inspired
AI or its improved performance in existing domains may amplify the uneven distribution of
power between the rich and the poor that comes with powerful technology in general. For
example, brain-inspired AI applications, especially when resulting from the work of privatecompanies, may be subject to economic access gatekeeping, emphasizing issues of equity
and justice concerning the possibility of taking advantage of the most recent technology.
This unequal access may affect both private users at the domestic level and entire countries
at the international level, exacerbating differences in a number of opportunities, including education, employment, scientific research, academic careers, and further technologicaladvances. These risks are not exclusive to brain-inspired AI (as illustrated by the difference
between free and paid versions of ChatGPT, which already raises the issue of equal access),but it is likely that brain-inspired AI will further emphasize them.
This analysis of the practical ethical issues arising from brain-inspired AI can now
be illustrated by considering two possible fields of application that are benefitting frombrain-inspired advancements: natural language processing and continual learning/context
understanding.

13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 13 of 27

133

3.1.1 Natural language processing
LLMs like GPT-3 and GPT-4 (Brown et al. 2020) have recently gained significant popularity
due to impressive progress in their applicability, even by lay people in ordinary life contexts.
For instance, discussions surrounding ChatGPT have exploded in the last few months. Since
its release at the close of 2022, a growing number of people have harnessed its potential
for a variety of purposes, including assistance in academic research (e.g., for summarizing
or writing texts), in medicine (e.g., for assistance in diagnosis), in business (e.g., for content marketing), in education (e.g., for reviewing students essays), and in computer science(e.g., for coding). Notwithstanding these impressive results, ChatGPT is still brittle andfragile. This arises from the fact that the technology is still in its developmental stages andrelies solely on one type of training data (i.e., text data). Compared to human intelligence,
ChatGPT lacks embodiment, that is the sensorimotor abilities that humans use to explore
the world through multisensory integration within a constitutive interaction between brain,
body, and environment (Pennartz 2009). As a result of this interaction, human intelligenceis multidimensional, and it is capable of online learning (i.e., of developing a realistic representation of the world that is adapted in real time). ChatGPT and LLMs in general presently
lack this multidimensional and multisensory representation of the world, and therefore they
are intrinsically exposed to limited and distorted knowledge.
Brain-inspired solutions might assist the improvement of LLMs on these aspects. To
illustrate, potentially relevant results have been obtained incorporating biologically inspired
neural dynamics into deep learning using a novel construct called spiking neural unit (SNU)(Woźniak et al. 2020). SNU has improved the energy efficiency of AI hardware, and it
promises improvements in a number of tasks, including natural language processing. Also,a novel online learning algorithm for deep Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs), called online
spatio-temporal learning (OSTL), has been introduced, with the potential for improving
language modeling and speech recognition (Bohnstingl et al. 2022).
The application of the ethical framework described above to the case of natural language
processing leads to the identification of the following ethically relevant potential benefits
and risks (see Table 2).
At the operational level, an increased ability of AI systems to process natural language
is likely to result in increased efficiency due to the use of heuristics based on the frequencyof occurrence in natural language. However, there is the potential risk of greater difficulty intesting systems because there is a larger set of possible commands to check the functionality,
leading to biased or inappropriate output going unnoticed.
At the instrumental level, there is the possibility of an easier use of AI (e.g., a richer andmore flexible vocabulary to operate it) and more possibilities to exploit it (e.g., greater easeof use in varied contexts). In fact, AI systems will likely interact with human users in a moreintuitive and direct way because more instructions/training data mediated by natural language will be possible. At the same time, it is also likely to increase the risk of unethical dataprocessing and handling, for instance through more invasive AI systems, that is, systems
characterized by an increased ability to identify and process sensitive data from humans.
At the relational level, an increased ability of AI systems to process natural language
may either result in leading to more positive attitudes towards them (if they are perceived
as closer to humans) or to hyped perception and misplaced trust in AI capacities (if anthropomorphic biases and unbalanced communication about the actual capacity of AI systems

13

133

Page 14 of 27

Table 2 Potential ethically
relevant benefits and risks arisingfrom improved natural language
processing by brain-inspired AI

M. Farisco et al.
Benefits
Operational level
Increased efficiency due to the use ofheuristics based on frequency of occurrence in natural language

Instrumental level
Easier use of AI (e.g., a richer and more
flexible vocabulary to operate it) andmore possibilities to exploit it
Relational level
More positive attitudes towards AI
systems
Societal level
More accessible AI systems (both easy
to use and less expensive)

Risks
Greater difficulty of testing systems because there
is a larger set of possiblecommands, leading tobiased or inappropriate
output going unnoticed
Increased risk of unethicaldata processing (e.g.,
privacy infringement)
Risk of hyped perception
and misplaced trust in AI
systems and increased riskof “uncanny valley” effect.
New forms of economic
exploitations

prevail). Also, an increased risk of the so-called “uncanny valley” arises: a sense of uneasiness or eeriness experienced by humans when a technology is very similar to a human being
but something appears “off” (Ciechanowski et al. 2019).
Finally, at the societal level, optimized natural language processing is likely to result in
more accessible and “democratic” AI systems (i.e., more people will be able to use thembecause the interaction will be much easier and possibly less expensive for an increased
commercialization), but at the same time it might trigger new forms of economic exploitation (e.g., through unequal capacity for user profiling) and a powerful impact on the job
market (e.g., raising the risk of increasingly replacing humans in more “creative” activities
like journalism or coding).

3.1.2 Continual learning and context understanding
Continual learning (also named open-ended learning) and context understanding present
significant challenges to current AI, which is limited in its ability to learn new things on
the fly and to adapt to new circumstances. Recent research has highlighted the possible
contribution of neuroscience to improving the learning capacity of AI systems. For instance,
the flexibility, adaptiveness to new circumstances, and fast learning capacity characteristicof the brain might derive in part from its capacity to autonomously learn on the basis of“intrinsic motivations” (e.g., curiosity, interest in novel stimuli or surprising events, andinterest in learning new behaviours) (Barto 2004; Santucci et al. 2013). These are different
from “extrinsic motivations” involving biological drives, such as hunger and pain, directed
toward obtaining specific resources from the environment. Intrinsic motivations are maximally evident in children at play, and are, for example, related to novelty, surprise, andthe success in accomplishing desired goals. The biological function of intrinsic motivations is to drive the learning of knowledge and skills that might be later used to find useful
resources. The digital simulation of intrinsic motivations allows AI systems, such as DNNs
and humanoid robots, to actively seek the knowledge they lack. This lets them adapt to new13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 15 of 27

133

circumstances without the need for external guidance, eventually making AI more autonomous. Moreover, it speeds up learning processes as these are directed to the interactions thatmaximize knowledge and competence gain.
Directly related to the improvement of learning capability is the AI capacity for context
understanding, that is, its ability to know relevant features of real-world contexts in order
to appropriately act in them and to interact with other systems/agents within them. Timecontinuous learning in substrates with time-continuous dynamics is the subject of a numberof recent studies (Haider et al. 2021; Kungl et al. 2019a; Sacramento et al. 2018; Senn et al.
2023). This obviates the need for phases in learning, allowing AI agents to simply observe
their surroundings in a time-continuous fashion, making it easier to embed them in complex,
real-time contexts, which is one of the aspects current AI is missing.
Research has shown the advantages of attention for limiting the information stream tobe processed, which may aid continual learning and context understanding. This is not only
evidenced by the aforementioned LLMs relying on so-called transformers, which differentially weigh different parts of their input, but also by direct investigation of human learning(Niv et al. 2015). In this vein, a bio-inspired model that integrates bottom-up and top-down
attention to scan the scene has been introduced (Ognibene and Baldassare 2015), showing
the advantages of developing an integrated interplay between the two by continual reinforcement learning. This can lead an agent to autonomously find relevant stimuli in orderto solve tasks, thus processing a smaller amount of information and speeding up learning.
Another example is the recently proposed Attention-Gated Brain Propagation (BrainProp),
a form of reinforcement learning that obviates the need for supervision to approximate error
backpropagation (Pozzi et al. 2020). Attentional mechanisms are likely to become evenmore relevant as AI systems are developed that handle multimodal input streams, including
not only text but also auditory and visual input.
The application of the ethical model presented above results in the following ethically
relevant potential issues (see Table 3).
At the operational level the capacity for continual learning and the improvement of context understanding will likely result in more autonomous, flexible, and adaptable AI systems, which will be less prone to operative failures and more user-friendly. This will likely
Table 3 Potential ethically
relevant benefits and risks arisingfrom improved continual learning and context understanding by
brain-inspired AI

Benefits
Risks
Operational level
More autonomous, flexible, adaptable AI systems Less transparent
AI systems
Instrumental level
Increased number of contexts in which to use AI Less control on
systems
AI systems by
the users
Relational level
People more prone to see AI systems as reliable
Increased feelingtools
of being insecure
and/or less able
than AI systems
Socio-economic level
Possibility to maximize the advantage of using AI Risk of replacing
in different contexts
human agentsalso in more creative activities

13

133

Page 16 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

be counterbalanced by an increased risk of less transparent AI systems: since they will be
more able to learn on the fly how to act, they will have evolving parameters and will eventually be more independent from top-down instructions and external monitoring, reducing thespace for human understanding and supervision. This is an ethical issue because increased
opacity of AI systems leads to an increased risk of unexpected operational failure withpotential negative consequences, and fewer possibilities to prevent them.
At the instrumental level, the potential uses of AI (i.e., the contexts in which it can beused) will eventually be increased, but there is a risk that the capacity for controlling it by
the users will be reduced.
At the relational level, an enhanced ability of AI for continual learning and for interacting with its surroundings might promote on the one hand a general perception of AI as morereliable and robust because it would be more able to adapt to changing external conditions.
On the other hand, some people might feel more insecure, because of an increasing perception of AI systems as autonomous agents, and a self-perception as less capable than AI in an
increasing number of activities.
At the societal level, optimized continual learning and context understanding will make itpossible to maximize the advantage of using AI in many more contexts than traditional AI,
but the risk of replacing human agents in different sectors, including those requiring morecreativity and capacity for adaptation, will likely increase, eventually leading to concerns
about a reduction or loss of human agency.

3.2 Fundamental ethics of brain-inspired AI
We have introduced four levels for the identification and the analysis of the practical ethicalissues arising from brain-inspired AI, and have illustrated them with two case studies. Here
we identify some fundamental/foundational ethical issues raised by brain-inspired AI. As
mentioned above, these issues concern the justification of the attempt itself to build braininspired AI and its impact on how we think about fundamental moral notions. Therefore, we
distinguish two main categories of fundamental ethical issues:● Those related to goals, which refer to questions like: What is the driver of brain-inspired AI? What do we want to achieve by it?
● Those related to concepts, which include issues like epistemic risk, implicit assumptions about brain-inspired AI, and considerations about the historical, cultural, and societal contexts of brain-inspired AI.

3.2.1 Fundamental ethical issues emerging from brain-inspired AI in relation to goals
Different goals motivate the attempt to translate brain principles and features into AI, andeach raises fundamental ethical issues (see Table 4 and 5).
As noted above, a first, main intention of the development of brain-inspired AI is improving traditional AI, by advancing in the following sectors (among others):● More effective interaction of AI systems with the world.
● Optimized information processing.

13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI
Table 4 Illustrative goals ofbrain-inspired AI and related
fundamental ethical issues

Page 17 of 27

Goal of brain-inspired AI
Improving traditional AI

Making AI moreautonomous

133

Fundamental ethical issue
What does improvement mean and forwhat? E.g., does it include awarenessof the potential impact on different
social groups or actors, including nonhuman? Does it include awareness ofcultural diversity?
How might more autonomous AI
systems impact human autonomy,
including how people think about theirautonomy? How is more autonomy better in this context? What does it mean?
Does brain-inspired AI aim to replicate
operational brain principles related to
ethical reasoning? Can this introduce
artificial moral agents?

Discovering operational
principles in different
sensorimotor and cognitive fields, which may beengineered and applied toAI systems
Taking the brain as a
How should AGI be conceptualized,
model for advancing in the particularly in relation to ethicaldirection of Artificial Gen- dimensions? and why AGI?
eral Intelligence (AGI)

Table 5 Fundamental ethical issues arising from brain-inspired
AI

Fundamental
issuesThe brain
as a modelfor AI

Related ethical questions

How can we be sure that applying brain principles
in AI is the best possible option for advancing thedevelopment of AI and thus maximizing the benefit
for our society?
Are we maybe just seconding our anthropocentricbias which makes it hard if not impossible for us tothink beyond the form of intelligence as we know it
in nature?
How unlikely is it that we will eventually end up replicating the shortcomings that make biological, andparticularly human intelligence a source of risks anddangers for human society and the rest of the world?
Potential
If what characterizes and qualifies our biologicalimplications intelligence can be realistically replicated (i.e., simuof brainlated) artificially, would it imply that there is nothing
inspired AI
morally unique in our identity? If so, why would thisfor thosebe ethically problematic?
concepts that Would our self-understanding as moral agents be
are tradition- impacted?
ally assumed If what characterizes us as moral agents (e.g.,as the basis
relevant cognitive and/or emotional abilities) canfor qualifying be artificially replicated through a brain-inspired
an agent as
AI, would this imply that such AIs qualify as moral
moral
agents? If so, would this be a problem? Why?
Would a hypothetical artificial replication of ourmoral agency have consequences in how to discriminate between the good and the bad? How would
this impact how we understand moral reasoning anddecision-making?

13

133

Page 18 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

● Improvement of AI systems’ capability of on-line problem solving.
● Improvement of high assurance systems, like in manufacturing, information
technology,navigation, etc.
● More effective real-world applications, like in banking, defense, education, finance,
medicine, security, etc.
● More efficient robotics applications and better embodiment of AI.
● More flexible and autonomous AI.
A fundamental issue arising from the general goal of improving traditional AI concerns theunderlying understanding of improvement. Related to this question is the issue of which
improvements will lead to a better society. These are conceptual issues with direct ethical implications. For instance, to what extent does the desired improvement include considerations about potential societal and ethical impacts of brain-inspired AI on different
social groups or actors, including non-human entities? Is the notion of improvement in thiscase only informed by technical considerations? Does it take into account cultural differences? In fact, culture, conceived as both socio-political and disciplinary identity, significantly impacts how we discriminate between what is good and what is bad (Farisco 2023).
The impact of culture on our evaluations is expressed in the concept of cultural model as
elaborated in cognitive anthropology. Cultural models are “mental representations sharedby members of a culture” (Bennardo, De Munck 2014), which inform our knowledge andour evaluation of the world, including our ethical reasoning. For instance, people from moreindividualistic cultures may be prone to privilege values like privacy and confidentiality inthe use of AI systems, while people from more collective cultures may manifest opposite
inclinations, for instance giving priority to collective security rather than individualistic
rights. This illustrates that the meaning of improvement is not self-evident or objective: It
is necessary to acknowledge the controversy around the meaning of improvement and promote a thoughtful exchange of different opinions that are conducive to human well-being
across the cultural landscape.
A second goal of brain-inspired AI is to make AI more autonomous through a better clarification and artificial replication of motivations, emotions, and values underlying humandecision-making. A fundamental ethical question raised by this goal revolves around possible impacts of more autonomous AI on humans, including on how humans perceive theirautonomy. For instance, when interacting with autonomous AI systems, people may not feel
unique anymore, and may ultimately perceive these systems as a limiting factor for theirown autonomy.
A third goal of brain-inspired AI is more knowledge-oriented: discovering operational
principles in different sensorimotor and cognitive fields, which may be engineered andapplied to AI systems. This way a positive epistemic feedback loop between brain-inspired
AI and neuroscience may be realized: the first is inspired by the second and at the same time
contributes to further advancing our knowledge of the brain. A fundamental ethical question
concerns the kind of brain principles that we aim to scale and apply to AI systems: do theyalso include principles related to the capacity for ethical reasoning? If so, the possibility
that brain-inspired AI systems may be equipped with moral reasoning cannot be logically
excluded, even if the technical feasibility remains challenging. Also, informing AI withbrain principles underlying capacities like empathy and sociability may help in developing
more friendly and beneficial systems.

13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 19 of 27

133

Finally, another motivation for brain-inspired AI is advancing in the direction of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), even if both its conceptual reliability and technical feasibility remain controversial (Summerfield 2023). A fundamental point to consider is thatgeneral intelligence is likely shaped by several factors, including bodily and environmental
factors. This implies that limiting the focus to the brain risks being overly reductive andeventually ineffective for reaching AGI. At the ethical level, the question of what kind ofgenerality we refer to in the underlying concept of AGI and why we are seeking it arises:
does it also include ethically relevant features and if so, how are these dealt with? And whatis the underlying motivation of seeking AGI? For instance, if informed by only cognitive
features without the emotional and social dimensions of human intelligence, AGI may beeventually rather limited and even potentially dangerous: history shows that intelligence
may in principle lead to great achievements as well as to great risks.
The aforementioned goals are not morally neutral in themselves. If achieved, they will
necessarily lead to ethically relevant discussions regarding, for example, the notion ofautonomy in general and of AI autonomy in particular, and about the necessity to alignhuman and AI values. While this type of debate is not new within AI ethics, brain-inspired
AI has the potential to bring it to the fore and exacerbate it insofar as it promotes advancesin the direction of autonomous and ethically reasoning AI.
Importantly, all these goals, even if intrinsically bearing on ethical issues, are a priori
neutral with regards to potential positive or negative societal consequences. In fact, thetechnical improvements potentially deriving from brain-inspired AI can equally lead to both
good or bad applications. It is crucial to facilitate and to implement a multidisciplinaryreflection and to set up a monitoring system in order to anticipate and identify relevant ethical issues in a timely manner. We propose combining the two ethical approaches introducedin this paper (i.e., fundamental and practical) as a promising strategy to identify emerging
ethical issues, prioritize them, anticipate their impact on society, and eventually maximize
the benefits deriving from brain-inspired AI.

3.2.2 Fundamental ethical issues emerging from brain-inspired AI in relation toconcepts
This second group of fundamental ethical issues refers to theoretical considerations, which
include epistemic risk, implicit assumptions about brain-inspired AI, and considerations
about the historical, cultural, and societal contexts of brain-inspired AI. Epistemic riskmeans the possibility that the target model of brain-inspired AI (i.e., the brain) is not thebest reference to optimize AI, either because we do not sufficiently know it or because of
its own intrinsic limitations. This connects to implicit assumptions about brain-inspired AI,
more specifically to the possibility of taking for granted that the brain is exemplary and thattaking inspiration from it is the best possible strategy for optimizing AI. Finally, a number ofquestions arise from the interaction of brain-inspired AI with particular historical, cultural,and social contexts, and the resulting impact on ingrained foundational moral notions.
A first fundamental question concerns the justification of brain-inspired AI: why take thebiological brain as a model for AI in the first place? This question is not only scientificallyand technically relevant: it is also important from the point of view of public policy, Scienceand Technology Studies (STS), and ethics. From a public policy perspective a key questionis whether the expected benefits of brain-inspired AI are substantial enough to prioritize

13

133

Page 20 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

its development rather than allocating resources to the further development of traditional
AI. From an STS perspective, a point to address is what are the underlying politics andnarratives used to frame brain-inspired AI as promising or cutting-edge. From an ethicalperspective, the concern that emerges is whether biologically plausible and brain-inspired
AI will actually lead to a maximization of benefits for society. After all, we cannot rule out
the possibility that by developing brain-inspired AI we might be just following our alreadymentioned anthropocentric bias which makes it hard if not impossible for us to think beyond
intelligence as we know it in nature. Is it possible that we tend to perceive brain-inspired
AI as the optimal strategy to achieve societal benefits, because of our inability to see andappreciate alternatives to biological intelligence? We may be considering brain-inspired AI
as more promising than traditional AI not for technical reasons but rather because of ourcultural (i.e., anthropocentric) biases. Moreover, we must be mindful of the possibility thatbrain-inspired AI might end up replicating the shortcomings that make biological, and particularly human intelligence, a source of risks and harms for human societies at large. If so,
this would have practical implications and an important theoretical dimension. These ethicalquestions touch upon our view of ourselves and our nature as intelligent agents, as well as
our view of what is best for society and what role science and technology should play in it.
A second fundamental question concerns the possible implications of brain-inspired AI
for those concepts that are traditionally assumed as the basis of morality, namely the conditions for agency in general and for moral agency in particular. Intentionality (i.e., wilfulgoal-oriented action) is usually assumed as a necessary and sufficient condition for agency(Davidson 1963, 1971). Yet this traditional view of agency has been complemented andsometimes criticized from different perspectives, highlighting, for instance, that the ability
to reflect on and to care about the motivations of an action are peculiar to persons vs. nonpersons (Frankfurt 1971), and that agency comprises different dimensions (i.e., authenticity,
privacy, responsibility, trust) that are distinguished and reciprocally linked at the same time
(Schönau et al. 2021). Attributing this plethora of concepts to AI is not uncontroversial, andbrain-inspired AI might push us further in this direction, for instance if it replicates relevant
functions of the human brain.
Regarding moral agency, brain-inspired AI might raise issues related to the traditional
criteria for qualifying as a moral agent, and the sense and/or self-concept of being a moral
agent. Moral agency is basically understood as the ability to discern right from wrong andto choose the relevant goals to pursue. While the issue of whether this capacity is mainly
cognitive or emotional continues to be debated, there is wide consensus on the crucial role
played by the brain and particularly by some specific cerebral areas and related functionalities (Verplaetse 2013).
A number of ethically relevant foundational questions may arise from the prospect ofbrain-inspired AI: if what characterizes and qualifies our biological intelligence can berealistically replicated (i.e., simulated) artificially, would this imply that there is nothingunique (both metaphysically and morally) to our natural identity? Is this morally problematic? If yes, for what reasons? The supposed uniqueness of humans has already beenfalsified by evolutionary biology, but brain-inspired AI poses a different threat, specificallyto the supposedly unique identity of humans as moral agents. Specifically, if the featuresthat characterize us as moral agents (e.g., relevant cognitive and/or emotional abilities) can
be artificially replicated through brain-inspired AI, does this suggest that AIs can be moral
agents? Would our self-understanding as moral agents be impacted? And would a hypotheti-13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 21 of 27

133

cal artificial replication of our moral agency have consequences for the way we discriminate
between good and bad?
It is unlikely that implementing some brain-inspired principles in currently narrow AI
will raise these kinds of issues, particularly because at present AI appears too constrained tothe specific goals for which it has been pre-programmed, and its flexibility and robustness
are too limited to enable the rise of artificial moral agency. These issues are more likely to beraised by the presence of a hypothetical human-like or human-level brain-inspired AI which
at least at present appears far-fetched. Still, the theoretical possibility is, as such, ethically
relevant, because it might be translated into technical feasibility, and ethics should not betaken to be just reactive but, importantly, proactive, anticipating possible future scenarios.
There is an additional fundamental issue potentially relevant to brain-inspired AI, onethat arises from how brain-inspired AI is conceived and developed, and which will inevitably impact how it eventually operates. Since genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors,
including culture, socialization, and culturally/historically formed notions of identity shapethe brain, the possibility of introducing biases in brain-inspired AI arises. This raises a number of ethically relevant issues: can brain-inspired AI inadvertently present a set of novel
biases, that is, different from those raised by traditional AI? If so, how should these biases be
evaluated from an ethical perspective? For instance, brain-inspired AI may enhance biases
caused by the selection of training data (e.g., it may take only selected neuronal data as reference) if calibrated on particular sets of brain data (e.g., from adult brains rather than young
brains, without accounting for important differences in terms of plasticity and dynamics).
The problem raised by biases in brain-inspired AI can also be turned around, by inquiring
whether AI will be able to understand and apply the requisite manifestations of “diversity”
and comprehend the “situatedness” of human cognition and perception in various types ofAI-based predictions and applications. The point, which is ethically very salient, is thatwithout awareness or understanding of the significance of the diversity of human knowledge, perception, and capacity of making sense of the world, many AI predictions and applications are themselves likely to be biased, of limited utility or eventually useless.
Moreover, implicit or explicit neuro-essentialist and neuro-reductionist cultural models(Vidal 2017) might impact how the general public perceives brain-inspired AI. In fact, if thebrain is conceived as the core essence of human nature, and if human identity is eventually
reduced to the brain, then imitating it means imitating what humans are, including ethically
relevant features. As a consequence, brain-inspired AI might raise new fears, for instanceabout the supposed risk of creating artificial sentience leading to artificial forms of suffering(Metzinger 2021).

4 Conclusion
Brain-inspired AI is an attractive strategy for improving current AI, but it raises a number oftechnical and ethical issues. In this paper we summarized the main conceptual and technicalaspects of brain-inspired AI, and introduced a method for its ethical analysis, distinguishing
two main kinds of ethical issues: practical and fundamental/foundational.
We proposed that the practical issues arising from brain-inspired AI can be organized interms of the following main levels:

13

133

Page 22 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

● Operational, related to how AI works;● Instrumental, related to how people use AI;● Relational, related to how people see AI and to the resulting psychological and metaphysical human-AI relationship;● Societal, related to the social and economic costs and consequences of the development
and use of AI.
We described the fundamental/foundational ethical issues arising from brain-inspired AI
as those issues that concern the justification of the attempt itself to build brain-inspired AI
and its impact on how we think about fundamental moral notions. We identified two maincategories of this second kind of issues: those related to goals and those related to concepts.
On the basis of the application of the method introduced in this paper we conclude thatbrain-inspired AI has the potential to raise new fundamental/foundational and practical ethical issues, as well as to exacerbate the practical ethical issues raised by traditional AI, whichshould be considered in relation to this promising approach.
Acknowledgements Special thanks to the participants of CRB scientific seminars, particularly to Kathinka
Evers and Pär Segerdahl, and to two anonymous reviewers for extremely useful comments that improved thereadability and clarity of the paper.
Author contributions M.F. wrote the manuscript and was responsible for general ideas. S.J.A. contributed torevising and developing ideas. All authors were involved in revising the manuscript critically and substantively for important intellectual content and gave final approval of the paper and agreed to be accountable for
all aspects of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation under theSpecific Grant Agreement No. 945539 (Human Brain Project SGA3) (All); European Innovation Council
Action No.101071178 (CAVAA) (M.F.); European Union Grant Agreements No. 604102, 720270, 785907(M.A.P.); the Manfred Stärk Foundation (M.A.P.).
Open access funding provided by Uppsala University.

Declarations
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commonslicence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article areincluded in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.
If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted
by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the
copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References
AA.VV. (2012) Is the brain a good model for machine intelligence? Nature, 482(7386), 462–463. https://doi.
org/10.1038/482462a13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 23 of 27

133

Allen M, Frank D, Schwarzkopf DS, Fardo F, Winston JS, Hauser TU, Rees G (2016) Unexpected arousal
modulates the influence of sensory noise on confidence. eLife 5:e18103. https://doi.org/10.7554/
eLife.18103
Amunts K, Knoll AC, Lippert T, Pennartz CMA, Ryvlin P, Destexhe A, Bjaalie JG (2019) The human brain
project-synergy between neuroscience, computing, informatics, and brain-inspired technologies. PLoS
Biol 17(7):e3000344. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000344
Attwell D, Laughlin SB (2001) An energy budget for signaling in the grey matter of the brain. J Cereb Blood
Flow Metab 21(10):1133–1145. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004647-200110000-00001
Barto AG (2004) Intrinsically Motivated Learning of Hierarchical Collections of Skills Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Development and Learning (pp. 112–119). Rome: Diamond Scientific
Publishing
Bellec G, Scherr F, Subramoney A, Hajek E, Salaj D, Legenstein R, Maass W (2020) A solution to thelearning dilemma for recurrent networks of spiking neurons. Nat Commun 11(1):3625. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-020-17236-y
Beniaguev D, Segev I, London M (2021) Single cortical neurons as deep artificial neural networks. Neuron
109(17):2727–2739e2723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.07.002
Bennardo G, De Munck VC (2014) Cultural models: genesis, methods, and experiences. Oxford University
Press, New YorkBi, Poo MM (1998) Synaptic modifications in cultured hippocampal neurons: dependence on spike timing,
synaptic strength, and postsynaptic cell type. J Neurosci 18(24):10464–10472. https://doi.org/10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.18-24-10464.1998
Bi, Poo M (2001) Synaptic modification by correlated activity: Hebb’s postulate revisited. Annu Rev Neurosci 24:139–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.139
Billaudelle S et al (2020) Versatile Emulation of Spiking Neural Networks on an Accelerated Neuromorphic Substrate. 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 1–5. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ISCAS45731.2020.9180741
Billaudelle S, Cramer B, Petrovici MA, Schreiber K, Kappel D, Schemmel J, Meier K (2021) Structural
plasticity on an accelerated analog neuromorphic hardware system. Neural Netw 133:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2020.09.024
Birhane A (2021) Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach. Patterns 2(2):100205. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205
Bohnstingl T, Wozniak S, Pantazi A, Eleftheriou E (2022) Online spatio-temporal learning in deep neuralnetworks. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnnls.2022.3153985
Bonduriansky R, Day T (2018) Extended heredity: a New understanding of inheritance and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton; Oxford
Bostrom N (2014) Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First edition). Oxford University Press
Brown T, Mann B, Ryder N, Subbiah M, Kaplan JD, Dhariwal P, Amodei D (2020) Language Models are
Few-Shot Learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020)
Brundage M, Avin S, Clark J, Toner H, Eckersley P, Garfinkel B, Amodei D (2018) The Malicious Use of
Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation
Buhler FN, Brown P, Li J, Chen T, Zhang Z, Flynn MP (2017) 5–8 June 2017). A 3.43TOPS/W 48.9pJ/pixel
50.1nJ/classification 512 analog neuron sparse coding neural network with on-chip learning and classification in 40nm CMOS Paper presented at the 2017 Symposium on VLSI Circuits
Changeux JP, Courrège P, Danchin A (1973) A theory of the epigenesis of neuronal networks by selective
stabilization of synapses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 70(10):2974–2978
Changeux JP, Goulas A, Hilgetag CC (2021) A connectomic hypothesis for the hominization of the brain.
Cereb Cortex 31(5):2425–2449. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa365
Ciechanowski L, Przegalinska A, Magnuski M, Gloor P (2019) In the shades of the uncanny valley: anexperimental study of human–chatbot interaction. Future Generation Comput Syst 92:539–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.01.055
Coeckelbergh M (2020) AI ethics. The MIT, Cambridge, MA
Cramer B, Billaudelle S, Kanya S, Leibfried A, Grubl A, Karasenko V, Zenke F (2022) Surrogate gradients for analog neuromorphic computing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 119(4). https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.2109194119
Crick F (1989) The recent excitement about neural networks. Nature 337(6203):129–132. https://doi.
org/10.1038/337129a0
Davidson D (1963) Actions, reasons, and causes. J Philos 60(23):685
Davidson D (1971) Agency. In: Marras A, Binkley RW, Bronaugh RN (eds) Agent, Action, and reason. University of Toronto, Toronto, pp 1–37
Dietrich E, Fields C, Sullins JP, Van Heuveln B, Zebrowski R (2021) Great philosophical objections to Artificial Intelligence: the history and legacy of the AI wars. Bloomsbury Academic, London

13

133

Page 24 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

Dignum V (2019) Responsible Artificial Intelligence: how to develop and use AI in a responsible way.
Springer
Doya K, Ema A, Kitano H, Sakagami M, Russell S (2022) Social impact and governance of AI and neurotechnologies. Neural Netw 152:542–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2022.05.012
Dreyfus HL (1972) What computers can’t do; a critique of artificial reason, 1st edn. Harper & Row, New YorkEDPS (2020) Opinion on the European Commission’s White Paper on Artificial Intelligence – A European
approach to excellence and trust (Opinion 4/2020) (Opinion No. 4/2020)
Esser SK, Merolla PA, Arthur JV, Cassidy AS, Appuswamy R, Andreopoulos A, Modha DS (2016) Convolutional networks for fast, energy-efficient neuromorphic computing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
113(41):11441–11446. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604850113
Evers K (2007) Towards a philosophy for neuroethics. An informed materialist view of the brain might help
to develop theoretical frameworks for applied neuroethics. EMBO Rep, 8 Spec No, S48-51. https://doi.
org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401014
Farisco M (ed) (2023) Neuroethics and cultural diversity. ISTE-Wiley, London
Floreano D, Mattiussi C (2008) Bio-inspired Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Frankfurt HG (1971) Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a person. J Philos 68(1):5–20
Frenkel C, Indiveri G (2022) 20–26 Feb. 2022). ReckOn: A 28nm Sub-mm2 Task-Agnostic Spiking Recurrent
Neural Network Processor Enabling On-Chip Learning over Second-Long Timescales Paper presented
at the 2022 IEEE International Solid- State Circuits Conference (ISSCC)
Friedrich AB, Mason J, Malone JR (2022) Rethinking explainability: toward a postphenomenology of
black-box artificial intelligence in medicine. Ethics Inf Technol 24(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10676-022-09631-4
George D, Lazaro-Gredilla M, Guntupalli JS (2020) From CAPTCHA to Commonsense: how Brain canteach us about Artificial Intelligence. Front Comput Neurosci 14:554097. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fncom.2020.554097
Gershman SJ (2023) What have we learned about artificial intelligence from studying the brain? Retrieved
from https://gershmanlab.com/pubs/NeuroAI_critique.pdf website
Gerstner W, Kempter R, Van Hemmen JL, Wagner H (1996) A neuronal learning rule for sub-millisecond
temporal coding. Nature 383(6595):76–78
Göltz J, Kriener L, Baumbach A et al (2021a) Fast and energy-efficient neuromorphic deep learning with
first-spike times. Nat Mach Intell 3:823–835. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-021-00388-x
Göltz J, Kriener L, Sabado V, Petrovici MA (2021b) Fast and energy-efficient deep neuromorphic learning.
ERCIM NEWS 125:17–18
Haider P, Ellenberger B, Kriener L, Jordan J, Senn W, Petrovici MA (2021) Latent equilibrium: a unified
learning theory for arbitrarily fast computation with arbitrarily slow neurons. Adv Neural Inf Process
Syst 34:17839–17851
Hassabis D, Kumaran D, Summerfield C, Botvinick M (2017) Neuroscience-inspired Artificial Intelligence.
Neuron 95(2):245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.06.011
Hasson U, Nastase SA, Goldstein A (2020) Direct fit to Nature: an evolutionary perspective on Biologicaland Artificial neural networks. Neuron 105(3):416–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.12.002
Häusser M, Mel B (2003) Dendrites: bug or feature? Curr Opin Neurobiol 13(3):372–383. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00075-8
Hawkins J (2021) A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence (First edition). New York: Basic Books
Haydon PG, Carmignoto G (2006) Astrocyte control of synaptic transmission and neurovascular coupling.
Physiol Rev 86(3):1009–1031. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00049.2005
Hodgkin AL, Huxley AF (1952) A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J Physiol 117(4):500–544. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764
Hole KJ, Ahmad S (2021) A thousand brains: toward biologically constrained AI. SN Appl Sci 3(8):743.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04715-0
Indiveri G, Liu S-C (2015) Memory and information Processing in Neuromorphic Systems. Proc IEEE
103(8):1379–1397. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2015.2444094
Jha MK, Morrison BM (2018) Glia-neuron energy metabolism in health and diseases: new insights into
the role of nervous system metabolic transporters. Exp Neurol 309:23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
expneurol.2018.07.009
Jordan J, Schmidt M, Senn W, Petrovici MA (2021) Evolving interpretable plasticity for spiking networks.
eLife 10:e66273. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66273
Kaplan A, Haenlein M (2019) Siri, Siri, in my hand: who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations,
illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Bus Horiz 62:15–25
Kleene SC (1956) Representation of events in nerve nets and Finite Automata. Annals Math Stud 34:3–41

13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 25 of 27

133

Korcsak-Gorzo A, Muller MG, Baumbach A, Leng L, Breitwieser OJ, van Albada SJ, Petrovici MA (2022)
Cortical oscillations support sampling-based computations in spiking neural networks. PLoS Comput
Biol 18(3):e1009753. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009753
Kungl AF, Dold D, Riedler O, Senn W, Petrovici MA (2019a) Deep reinforcement learning in a time-continuous model Bernstein Conference
Kungl AF, Schmitt S, Klahn J, Muller P, Baumbach A, Dold D, Petrovici MA (2019b) Accelerated physical emulation of bayesian inference in spiking neural networks. Front Neurosci 13:1201. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01201
Leng M, Kakadiaris IA (2018) 20–24 Aug. 2018). Confidence-Driven Network for Point-to-Set Matching
Paper presented at the 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR)
Lillicrap TP, Cownden D, Tweed DB, Akerman CJ (2016) Random synaptic feedback weights support error
backpropagation for deep learning. Nat Commun 7:13276. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13276
Lillicrap TP, Santoro A, Marris L, Akerman CJ, Hinton G (2020) Backpropagation and the brain. Nat Rev
Neurosci 21(6):335–346. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0277-3
Liu D, Yu H, Chai Y (2021) Low-power Computing with Neuromorphic Engineering. Adv Intell Syst
3:2000150. https://doi.org/10.1002/aisy.202000150
Maass W, Natschlager T, Markram H (2002) Real-time computing without stable states: a new framework for neural computation based on perturbations. Neural Comput 14(11):2531–2560. https://doi.
org/10.1162/089976602760407955
Macpherson T, Churchland A, Sejnowski T, DiCarlo J, Kamitani Y, Takahashi H, Hikida T (2021) Naturaland Artificial Intelligence: a brief introduction to the interplay between AI and neuroscience research.
Neural Netw 144:603–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2021.09.018
Marcus G, Davis E (2019) Rebooting AI: building artificial intelligence we can trust (First edition. ed.). New
York: Pantheon Books
Markov NT, Vezoli J, Chameau P, Falchier A, Quilodran R, Huissoud C, Kennedy H (2014) Anatomy of hierarchy: feedforward and feedback pathways in macaque visual cortex. J Comp Neurol 522(1):225–259.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.23458
McCulloch W, Pitts W (1943) A logical calculus of ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull Math Biophys
5:115–133
Mehonic A, Kenyon AJ (2022) Brain-inspired computing needs a master plan. Nature 604(7905):255–260.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04362-w
Metzinger T (2021) An argument for a global moratorium onSynthetic phenomenology. J Arti¯cial Intell
Conscious 8(1):1–24
Millidge B, Tschantz A, Buckley CL (2022) Predictive coding approximates Backprop along Arbitrary Computation Graphs. Neural Comput 34(6):1329–1368. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco_a_01497
Nemitz P (2018) Constitutional democracy and technology in the age of artificial intelligence. PhilosophicalTrans Royal Soc A: Math Phys Eng Sci 376(2133):20180089. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0089
Nishant R, Kennedy M, Corbett J (2020) Artificial intelligence for sustainability: challenges, opportunities,
and a research agenda. Int J Inf Manag 53:102104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102104
Niv Y, Daniel R, Geana A, Gershman SJ, Leong YC, Radulescu A, Wilson RC (2015) Reinforcement learning in multidimensional environments relies on attention mechanisms. J Neurosci 35(21):8145–8157.
https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2978-14.2015
Ognibene D, Baldassare G (2015) Ecological active vision: four Bioinspired principles to integrate Bottom–
Up and adaptive top–down attention tested with a simple camera-arm Robot. IEEE Trans Auton Ment
Dev 7(1):3–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2014.2341351
Park, Tallon-Baudry C (2014) The neural subjective frame: from bodily signals to perceptual consciousness.
Philosophical Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 369(1641):20130208. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0208
Park, Lee J, Jeon D (2019) 17–21 Feb. 2019). 7.6 A 65nm 236.5nJ/Classification Neuromorphic Processor
with 7.5% Energy Overhead On-Chip Learning Using Direct Spike-Only Feedback Paper presented atthe 2019 IEEE International Solid- State Circuits Conference - (ISSCC)
Parliament E (2020) The ethics of artificial intelligence: issues and initiatives (no. PE 634.452). EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, Bruxelles
Payeur A, Guerguiev J, Zenke F, Richards BA, Naud R (2021) Burst-dependent synaptic plasticity cancoordinate learning in hierarchical circuits. Nat Neurosci 24(7):1010–1019. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41593-021-00857-x
Pennartz C (2009) Identification and integration of sensory modalities: neural basis and relation to consciousness. Conscious Cogn 18(3):718–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.03.003
Petit JM, Magistretti PJ (2016) Regulation of neuron-astrocyte metabolic coupling across the sleep-wakecycle. Neuroscience 323:135–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.12.007

13

133

Page 26 of 27

M. Farisco et al.

Petrovici MA, Vogginger B, Muller P, Breitwieser O, Lundqvist M, Muller L, Meier K (2014) Characterization and compensation of network-level anomalies in mixed-signal neuromorphic modeling platforms.
PLoS ONE 9(10):e108590. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108590
Poirazi P, Brannon T, Mel BW (2003) Pyramidal neuron as two-layer neural network. Neuron 37(6):989–999.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00149-1
Poo M-m (2018) Towards brain-inspired artificial intelligence. Natl Sci Rev 5(6):785–785. https://doi.
org/10.1093/nsr/nwy120
Pozzi I, Sander B, Roelfsema P (2020) Attention-Gated Brain Propagation: How the brain can implement
reward-based error backpropagation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS
2020)
Prinz AA, Bucher D, Marder E (2004) Similar network activity from disparate circuit parameters. Nat Neurosci 7(12):1345–1352. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1352
Rao RP, Ballard DH (1999) Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extraclassical receptive-field effects. Nat Neurosci 2(1):79–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/4580
Renner A, Sheldon F, Zlotnik A, Tao L, Sornborger A (2021) The Backpropagation Algorithm Implementedon Spiking Neuromorphic Hardware. arXiv:2106.07030
Richards, Brockmann K, Boulanini V (2020) Responsible Artificial Intelligence Research and Innovation forInternational Peace and Security. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Stockholm
Richards, Lillicrap TP, Beaudoin P, Bengio Y, Bogacz R, Christensen A, Kording KP (2019) A deeplearning framework for neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 22(11):1761–1770. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41593-019-0520-2
Sacramento J, Costa RP, Bengio Y, Senn W (2018) Dendritic cortical microcircuits approximate the backpropagation algorithm. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on
Neural Information Processing Systems, Montréal, Canada
Santucci VG, Baldassarre G, Mirolli M (2013) Which is the best intrinsic motivation signal for learning
multiple skills? Front Neurorobot 7:22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2013.00022
Saxe A, Nelli S, Summerfield C (2020) If deep learning is the answer, what is the question? Nat Rev Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-00395-8
Schemmel J, Grubl A, Meier K, Mueller E (2006) Implementing synaptic plasticity in a VLSI spiking neuralnetwork model Paper presented at the The 2006 ieee international joint conference on neural network
proceedings
Schönau A, Dasgupta I, Brown T, Versalovic E, Klein E, Goering S (2021) Mapping the dimensions ofAgency. AJOB Neurosci 12(2–3):172–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2021.1896599
Senn W, Dold D, Kungl AF, Ellenberger B, Jordan J, Bengio Y, Petrovici MA (2023) A neuronal leastAction Principle for Real-Time learning in cortical circuits. bioRxiv, 2023.2003.2025.534198. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.25.534198
Sinz FH, Pitkow X, Reimer J, Bethge M, Tolias AS (2019) Engineering a less Artificial Intelligence. Neuron
103(6):967–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.08.034
Song, Miller KD, Abbott LF (2000) Competitive hebbian learning through spike-timing-dependent synaptic
plasticity. Nat Neurosci 3(9):919–926. https://doi.org/10.1038/78829
Song, Xu R, Lafferty J (2021) Convergence and alignment of Gradient Descent with Random Backpropagation weights. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 34:19888–19898
Springer
NatureOpen
AccesseBookshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69978-9
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-69978-9
Stahl BC (2021) Artificial intelligence for a better future: an ecosystem perspective on the ethics of AI
and emerging digital technologies SpringerBriefs in Research and Innovation Governance, (pp. 1
online resource). Retrieved from Directory of Open Access Books https://directory.doabooks.org/
handle/20.500.12854/67925
Stöckl C, Lang D, Maass W (2022) Structure induces computational function in networks with diverse typesof spiking neurons. bioRxiv 202120052018444689. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.18.444689
Summerfield C (2023) Natural General Intelligence: how understanding the brain can help us build AI.
Oxford University Press, New York
Turing A (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59:433–460
Ullman S (2019) Using neuroscience to develop artificial intelligence. Science 363(6428):692–693. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau6595
Verplaetse J (2013) The Moral Brain : Essays on the evolutionary and neuroscientific aspects of morality
Vidal F (2017) Being brains: making the cerebral subject (First edition. ed.). New York: Fordham University
Press
Walton N, Nayak BS (2021) Rethinking of marxist perspectives on big data, artificial intelligence (AI) andcapitalist economic development. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 166:120576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2021.120576

13

A method for the ethical analysis of brain-inspired AI

Page 27 of 27

133

Weil MM, Rosen LD (1995) A study of Technological Sophistication and Technophobia in University Students from 23 countries. Comput Hum Behav 11(1):95–133
Whitby B (1991) Ethical AI. Artif Intell Rev 5:201–204
Wiener N (1954) The human use of human beings; cybernetics and society. Houghton Mifflin, BostonWoźniak S, Pantazi A, Bohnstingl T, Eleftheriou E (2020) Deep learning incorporating biologically inspired
neural dynamics and in-memory computing. Nat Mach Intell 2(6):325–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s42256-020-0187-0
Wunderlich T, Kungl AF, Muller E, Hartel A, Stradmann Y, Aamir SA, Petrovici MA (2019) Demonstrating advantages of Neuromorphic Computation: a pilot study. Front Neurosci 13:260. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00260
Yeung K (2018) Algorithmic regulation: a critical interrogation. Regul Gov 12(4):505–523. https://doi.
org/10.1111/rego.12158
Zador A, Escola S, Richards B, Olveczky B, Bengio Y, Boahen K, Tsao D (2023) Catalyzing next-generation Artificial Intelligence through NeuroAI. Nat Commun 14(1):1597. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-023-37180-x
Zappacosta S, Mannella F, Mirolli M, Baldassarre G (2018) General differential hebbian learning: capturing
temporal relations between events in neural networks and the brain. PLoS Comput Biol 14(8):e1006227.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006227
Zuboff S (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier ofPower (First edition). New York: PublicAffairs
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps andinstitutional affiliations.

Authors and Affiliations
Michele Farisco1,2 · G. Baldassarre3 · E. Cartoni3 · A. Leach4 · M.A. Petrovici5 ·A. Rosemann4,6 · A. Salles1,7 · B. Stahl4,8 · S. J. van Albada9,10Michele Farisco
michele.farisco@crb.uu.se
1

Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

2

Biogem, Biology and Molecular Genetics Research Institute, Ariano Irpino (AV), Avellino,
Italy

3

Laboratory of Computational Embodied Neuroscience, Institute of Cognitive Sciences andTechnologies, National Research Council of Italy, Rome, Italy

4

Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

5

Department of Physiology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

6

Centre for the Study of the Life Sciences, EGENIS, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

7

Institute of Neuroethics, Atlanta, GA, USA

8

School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

9

Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6) Computational and Systems Neuroscience &Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6) Theoretical Neuroscience & JARA-Institut Brain
Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany

10

Institute of Zoology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

13