Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces the concept of cognitive digital twins (CDTs), which are dynamic representations of individual cognition that utilize behavioral, contextual, and physiological data to simulate and predict cognitive processes. It highlights the inadequacies of current governance frameworks in addressing the unique ethical risks posed by CDTs, such as misrepresentation and power asymmetries, and proposes a comprehensive 5A governance framework focused on authority, autonomy, access and control, accountability, and availability. The authors argue for the necessity of governance at the cognitive representation level to ensure ethical deployment and management of CDTs, emphasizing their potential to act as proxies for individuals in decision-making contexts.
CDTs could redefine personal agency by acting as cognitive proxies, raising urgent ethical governance challenges that current frameworks fail to address.
As AI systems become increasingly persistent and personalized, they make possible a class of technologies that we call cognitive digital twins (CDTs): dynamic computational representations of a specific person's cognition, updated from behavioral, contextual, or physiological data in order to model, predict, or simulate that person's cognition, or to act as that person's communicative or decision-making proxy. CDTs combine cognitive inference with longitudinal representation, simulation, and proxy action in ways that existing governance strategies for personal assistants, autonomous agents, recommender systems, and automated decision systems only partially address. This paper makes four contributions. First, we define CDTs and distinguish them from adjacent systems. Second, we introduce a 5A governance framework organized around authority, autonomy, access and control, accountability, and availability. Third, we identify CDT-specific risks, from misrepresentation and epistemic authority shifts to shadow twins, simulated participation, proxy action, and proxy-power asymmetries. Fourth, we analyze governance gaps and propose requirements for high-risk CDTs that strengthen consent, purpose limitation, validity, traceability, contestation, independent review, and model retirement. Existing frameworks primarily regulate data processing, automated decisions, or autonomous actions; CDTs also require governance at the level of cognitive representation itself, before any final decision or external action occurs. We argue that CDTs require governance not only because they can act for people, but because they can become infrastructures through which cognition is represented, simulated, classified, and operationalized.