Editing Neuromorphic computing (section)

== Ethical and legal considerations ==
While the interdisciplinary concept of neuromorphic engineering is relatively new, many of the same ethical considerations apply to neuromorphic systems as apply to human-like machines and [[artificial intelligence]] in general. However, the fact that neuromorphic systems are designed to mimic a [[human brain]] gives rise to unique ethical questions surrounding their usage.

However, the practical debate is that neuromorphic hardware as well as artificial "neural networks" are immensely simplified models of how the brain operates or processes information at a much lower [[complex system|complexity in terms of size and functional technology]] and a much more regular structure in terms of [[brain connectivity|connectivity]]. Comparing [[neuromorphic chip]]s to the brain is a very crude comparison similar to comparing a plane to a bird just because they both have wings and a tail. The fact is that biological neural cognitive systems are many orders of magnitude more [[Energy efficiency (physics)|energy-]] and compute-efficient than current state-of-the-art AI and neuromorphic engineering is an attempt to narrow this gap by inspiring from the brain's mechanism just like many engineering designs have [[bioengineering|bio-inspired features]].

=== Social concerns ===
Significant ethical limitations may be placed on neuromorphic engineering due to public perception.<ref>{{Cite report|url=https://ai100.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj9861/f/ai_100_report_0831fnl.pdf|title=Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence |date=September 2016 |publisher=Stanford University|access-date=December 26, 2019|archive-date=May 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190530152437/https://ai100.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj9861/f/ai_100_report_0831fnl.pdf}}</ref> Special [[Eurobarometer]] 382: Public Attitudes Towards Robots, a survey conducted by the European Commission, found that 60% of [[European Union]] citizens wanted a ban of robots in the care of children, the elderly, or the disabled. Furthermore, 34% were in favor of a ban on robots in education, 27% in healthcare, and 20% in leisure. The European Commission classifies these areas as notably "human." The report cites increased public concern with robots that are able to mimic or replicate human functions. Neuromorphic engineering, by definition, is designed to replicate the function of the human brain.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_382_en.pdf|title=Special Eurobarometer 382: Public Attitudes Towards Robots|last=European Commission|date=September 2012|website=European Commission}}</ref>

The social concerns surrounding neuromorphic engineering are likely to become even more profound in the future. The European Commission found that EU citizens between the ages of 15 and 24 are more likely to think of robots as human-like (as opposed to instrument-like) than EU citizens over the age of 55. When presented an image of a robot that had been defined as human-like, 75% of EU citizens aged 15–24 said it corresponded with the idea they had of robots while only 57% of EU citizens over the age of 55 responded the same way. The human-like nature of neuromorphic systems, therefore, could place them in the categories of robots many EU citizens would like to see banned in the future.<ref name=":1" />

=== Personhood ===
As neuromorphic systems have become increasingly advanced, some scholars{{who|date=August 2021}} have advocated for granting [[personhood]] rights to these systems.  Daniel Lim, a critic of technology development in the [[Human Brain Project]], which aims to advance brain-inspired computing, has argued that advancement in neuromorphic computing could lead to [[Machine Consciousness|machine consciousness]] or personhood.<ref name="lim">{{Cite journal|last=Lim|first=Daniel|date=2014-06-01|title=Brain simulation and personhood: a concern with the Human Brain Project|journal=Ethics and Information Technology|language=en|volume=16|issue=2|pages=77–89|doi=10.1007/s10676-013-9330-5|s2cid=17415814|issn=1572-8439}}</ref>  If these systems are to be treated as [[Person|people]], then many tasks humans perform using neuromorphic systems, including their termination, may be morally impermissible as these acts would violate their autonomy.<ref name="lim"/>

=== Ownership and property rights ===
There is significant legal debate around property rights and artificial intelligence. In ''Acohs Pty Ltd v. Ucorp Pty Ltd'', Justice Christopher Jessup of the [[Federal Court of Australia]] found that the [[source code]] for [[Material safety data sheets|Material Safety Data Sheets]] could not be [[Copyright law of Australia|copyrighted]] as it was generated by a [[software interface]] rather than a human author.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.lavan.com.au/advice/intellectual_property_technology/copyright_in_source_code_and_digital_products|title=Copyright in source code and digital products|last=Lavan|website=Lavan|language=en|access-date=2019-05-10}}</ref> The same question may apply to neuromorphic systems: if a neuromorphic system successfully mimics a human brain and produces a piece of original work, who, if anyone, should be able to claim ownership of the work?<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eshraghian|first1=Jason K. |title=Human Ownership of Artificial Creativity |journal=Nature Machine Intelligence |date=9 March 2020 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=157–160  |doi=10.1038/s42256-020-0161-x|s2cid=215991449 }}</ref>