For many years, technological dystopias were perceived as fictional exaggerations. Today, however, many of the scenarios once imagined by science fiction writers have become part of everyday reality. Artificial intelligence is already influencing judicial decisions, algorithms are being used to predict crime, autonomous weapons systems are gaining the ability to make lethal decisions, and digital technologies are beginning to redefine memory, grief, and even human identity itself.
In this analysis, Suzy Aristakesyan examines several technological developments that are already raising profound ethical, legal, and societal questions.
The End of the Presumption of Innocence: AI Judges and Predictive Policing
For decades, the idea of predicting crimes before they occur remained largely associated with Philip K. Dick’s science fiction universe and the film Minority Report. Today, however, elements of that concept have entered real-world legal and law enforcement systems.
One of the most controversial examples is the American COMPAS system (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions). The algorithm evaluates the likelihood of criminal recidivism and generates a mathematical risk score that judges may consider when making legal decisions, including detention rulings.
Supporters of such systems argued that algorithms could eliminate human bias, fatigue, and emotional subjectivity. In practice, however, critics argue that artificial intelligence often reproduces and institutionalizes existing social biases rather than eliminating them.
The independent investigative organization ProPublica brought global attention to the issue through its Machine Bias investigation. After analyzing more than 7,000 cases, journalists concluded that the COMPAS algorithm systematically overestimated recidivism risks for Black defendants while underestimating risks for white defendants. The system had effectively inherited historical discrimination embedded in the data used to train it.
At the same time, predictive policing systems such as Geolitica have been introduced in major metropolitan areas. These algorithms identify neighborhoods where criminal activity is statistically more likely and recommend increased police deployment.
Critics argue that such systems create a self-reinforcing cycle. Increased policing leads to more arrests, which in turn generate additional data confirming the original prediction, thereby perpetuating systemic bias.
Amnesty International’s report Automated Apartheid warns that such technologies may contribute to forms of digital segregation and the emergence of what some researchers describe as “digital ghettos.”
Autonomous Weapons and the Disappearance of Responsibility
Popular culture often depicts military robots as humanoid machines. Reality, however, has proven to be both simpler and potentially more dangerous.
A commercially available drone equipped with artificial intelligence and object recognition software can effectively become an autonomous weapon system.
In March 2021, the United Nations published a report that many experts consider historically significant. According to a UN Security Council report on Libya, the Turkish-made Kargu-2 drone may have autonomously tracked and attacked human targets without direct operator control.
The report described cases in which retreating forces were pursued by autonomous combat drones capable of selecting and engaging targets independently.
For many observers, this represented a historic turning point: for the first time, the decision to use lethal force may have been delegated to software rather than a human being.
The international Stop Killer Robots movement, which includes scientists, AI experts, and human rights advocates, has therefore called for a legally binding international treaty banning autonomous weapons.
Supporters of such a ban argue that algorithms lack empathy, cannot properly assess complex human situations, and cannot bear legal responsibility for their actions. If an autonomous system mistakenly kills civilians, a fundamental question emerges: who should be held accountable?
Experts are particularly concerned that autonomous targeting technologies are already being extensively tested in modern armed conflicts, transforming what began as an engineering solution into a rapidly expanding global military industry.
Digital Immortality and the Industry of Artificial Grief
Another rapidly growing field involves so-called grief technologies and digital immortality services.
Companies around the world now offer to collect a person’s digital footprint—including messages, voice recordings, photographs, videos, and social media activity—in order to create interactive chatbots or digital avatars after death.
One of the pioneers in this field is the American company StoryFile, which developed interactive digital personality technologies. International attention was drawn to the case of Marina Smith, who effectively “appeared” at her own memorial service through holographic technology and answered questions from attendees.
Other companies, including HereAfter AI and Seance AI, offer to transform such interactions into permanent forms of digital communication.
However, psychologists, ethicists, and legal scholars increasingly warn about the risks associated with these technologies. Researchers studying digital death argue that replacing a deceased person with a virtual simulation may interfere with the natural grieving process.
Instead of accepting loss and gradually recovering, individuals may become psychologically dependent on the illusion that their loved one still exists.
MIT Technology Review has examined the psychological consequences of these technologies in detail. Researchers emphasize that artificial intelligence possesses no consciousness and merely simulates behavioral patterns using previously collected information. When such systems generate inaccurate statements or behavior inconsistent with the deceased person’s identity, they may inflict additional emotional trauma.
The legal implications remain equally unresolved. Current legal systems provide no clear answer regarding ownership of digital personality rights after death or whether relatives have the authority to transfer personal data to private companies without prior consent.
As a result, the concept of “digital consent” remains largely undefined.
Designer Babies and the Emergence of Biological Inequality
The science fiction film Gattaca portrayed a society divided between genetically enhanced individuals and those born naturally. For many years, such scenarios were considered purely fictional.
That perception changed dramatically in 2018, when Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced the birth of the world’s first genetically modified children, the twins Lulu and Nana. Using CRISPR/Cas9 technology, he edited the CCR5 gene in an attempt to make them resistant to HIV.
The international scientific community strongly condemned the experiment, describing it as reckless, premature, and unethical. He Jiankui was subsequently sentenced to prison.
Nevertheless, the case demonstrated that humanity already possesses the technological capability to rewrite its own biological code.
Today, reproductive medicine continues to advance rapidly. Fertility clinics in several countries already offer preimplantation genetic testing designed to identify severe hereditary diseases before birth.
Some technologies also allow prospective parents to select specific characteristics of future children, including biological sex.
Companies such as Orchid Health have gone further by offering whole-genome embryo sequencing and risk assessments for conditions such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric disorders.
The World Health Organization has called for strict international oversight of genome-editing technologies, warning that their uncontrolled use could produce unprecedented forms of biological and social inequality.
A Choice Humanity May No Longer Have
According to the author, the central warning of Black Mirror was never that technology itself is inherently evil.
The deeper concern lies in humanity’s willingness to surrender increasingly important decisions to algorithms: determining guilt, authorizing lethal force, replacing human relationships with digital simulations, and redesigning the biological foundations of future generations.
Modern societies increasingly exchange human agency for promises of security, efficiency, and technological convenience.
The fundamental question, therefore, is not whether technology itself is dangerous, but whether humanity will still be able to turn back once it realizes that the point of no return has already been crossed.
Suzy Aristakesyan