L'IA peut-elle déterminer quels comportements humains devraient être biologiquement améliorés ?

L'IA peut désormais analyser la génétique comportementale à des échelles sans précédent. Des propositions politiques suggèrent d'optimiser l'humanité pour la productivité ou la longévité. Cela soulève des questions sur la coercition par rapport à la liberté dans le développement humain. Les implications pour l'identité et l'autonomie humaines sont profondes.

Background

AI systems now analyze behavioral genetics at unprecedented scales, enabling correlations between genetic markers and behavioral traits to be identified with increasing precision. Policy proposals have emerged advocating for enhancements aimed at increasing productivity, longevity, or other societal or individual benefits. However, determining which behaviors *should* be enhanced transcends technical capability, as this judgment depends on ethical, social, and philosophical considerations rather than empirical data alone. Behavioral genetics and neurobiology research can illuminate traits associated with disease resistance, cognitive function, or emotional regulation, but translating these insights into enhancement recommendations requires normative assessments about what constitutes desirable outcomes and who benefits from such interventions. Current AI tools excel at identifying potential biological interventions but are not positioned to prescribe them due to the absence of universally agreed-upon criteria for desirability or equity. The debate extends to concerns about coercion versus autonomy, as well as the broader implications for human identity when biology is intentionally modified to shape behavior.

SOURCE: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine — https://www.nationalacademies.org