Cognitive Digital Twins: Ethical Risks and Governance for AI Systems That Model the Mind
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2026.
Builds on
13 of 68 references.
References · 13
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
- 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 752
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 384
- 2020Performative Predictioncited by 327
- 2019A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cyclecited by 193
- 2022Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?cited by 105
- 2019Degenerate Feedback Loops in Recommender Systemscited by 67
- 2023Power-seeking can be probable and predictive for trained agentscited by 25
1 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.