As someone who hasn’t been a TV addict since an early age, I often find myself catching up—and taking notes—on TV series and films that are frequently referenced in discussions about AI and ethics.

Sometimes this feels a bit embarrassing, as many of these productions aired nearly a decade ago—but I’m trying to get used to it. One such example is Black Mirror’s “Crocodile” (2017) episode, which was cited in the Winter School last month.

In “Crocodile,” we see a world where routine insurance claim investigations heavily rely on technology capable of accessing human memories. As artificial intelligence continues to advance toward increasingly intrusive capabilities—such as biometric tracking, predictive analytics, and neural interfaces—the ethical dilemmas portrayed in this fictional drama feel strikingly real.

How do we balance innovation with privacy, consent, and accountability?

Below, I highlight some of the themes that stood out to me and invite you to reflect on their broader implications.

Note: This article discusses key plot points from the episode. If you haven’t watched it yet, you may want to do so before reading further.

1. Privacy and Memory Access

In the episode, a device called the Recaller can access and record people’s memories in order to reconstruct events. This raises ethical concerns that strongly resemble ongoing debates around data collection, surveillance, and facial recognition technologies.

Should technology have the right to access our private thoughts and memories? If so, under what conditions—if any—should this be allowed?

For many of us, memories are among the most precious and private aspects of our inner lives. In some cases, we may wish to hide them even from close family members—or from ourselves. While we increasingly live on social media platforms, building and sharing memories with broad and often undefined audiences, this does not justify machines directly extracting our most vivid and intimate experiences at the source.

2. Consent and Autonomy

In the episode, people are often compelled to share their memories as part of investigations. This raises critical questions about informed consent and pressure (or the abscence of choice) once technology becomes pervasive.

How do we ensure genuine consent in a world dominated by AI-driven systems? Where do we draw the line between public safety and personal autonomy?

Even today, when it comes to highly sensitive health data, particularly in the context of rare diseases, individuals may voluntarily participate in data‑sharing initiatives. Yet this raises another question: can we ever fully mitigate power imbalances?

I am reminded of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-1972), an awful example of unethical medical experimentation on African American men in the rural United States. Decades later, it was acknowledged that participants were neither properly informed nor offered effective treatment—even after penicillin became widely available. This history remains a striking reminder that participation does not automatically equal consent.

3. Accuracy and Reliability

In the episode, memories are explained to be subjective and unreliable, yet they are treated as objective truth. Similarly, AI systems often operate on incomplete or biased data, misinterpret information, or amplify existing biases and inequalities.

We have all heard of AI hallucinations, and many of us have experienced technological failures first-hand. Yet we continue to make consequential decisions based on these systems. Why do we place such confidence in flawed outputs?

Should AI-generated insights ever be treated as “truth”, or must human judgement always remain central? And if decision-making becomes increasingly automated, what does meaningful human oversight actually look like?

4. Scope Creep and Governance

In the episode, we first observe the use of technology as a tool for insurance investigations. Toward the end, however, we see how it is used for other purposes without oversight and control.  This raises questions about scope creep and governance: How can we prevent function creep in AI applications?

What regulatory and governance mechanisms are needed to limit misuse? Are existing frameworks sufficient, or do we need new ones for emerging technologies?

5. Human Responsibility

Despite the presence of advanced technology, the tragedy in “Crocodile” is ultimately driven by human decisions. At each critical moment, it is a person – not machine – who chooses one course of action over another.

AI does not eliminate human responsibility; it redistributes it. Accountability frameworks therefore become essential. Yet when AI systems influence decision‑making by issuing a “yes” or “no”, the question of responsibility becomes both unavoidable and complex.

Where, then, should responsibility lie—with developers, users, institutions, regulators, or across all of these actors simultaneously? With developers, users, institutions, regulators—or with all of them at once?

6. Social Divisions and Systemic Dehumanization

Beyond sending chills down my spine with its silent cruelty, the episode also left me thinking about social divisions. In “Crocodile,” technology does not eliminate social divisions; it preserves or even sharpens them. Despite all the technological advancements, the mid-level investigator still needs to work overtime to earn a double bonus. The system operates through data, procedures and “efficient decision-making”, and moral intent becomes secondary to structural logic.

We see clear differences in power, credibility, and vulnerability, yet all the actors in the episode believe they are doing the right thing – whether behaving professionally, ethically, or pragmatically. They are simply following procedures or relying on systems designed to produce certainty. Yet the cumulative outcome is not justice, but systemic dehumanization.

This reflects a broader risk in AI‑driven societies: while technology advances, existing inequalities are not reduced. Instead they are encoded, scaled, and legitimized through systems that prioritize efficiency, certainty, and risk‑management over human complexity. In other words, even when individuals try to do the right thing, it doesn’t always lead to ethical outcomes if the system itself is flawed.

But when injustice emerges from systems that no single actor fully controls, who—or what—should be held accountable?

Conclusion

“Crocodile” reminds us that the most unsettling futures are not created by technology alone, but by the choices we make —and the systems we build – around how and why we use it. AI challenges us not only to innovate responsibly, but also to confront fundamental questions about power, consent, truth, and human dignity. Perhaps the real test is whether we, as humans, are prepared to govern these technologies with care, humility, and accountability.

Published on Linkedin