Nor is machine learning likely to produce a reliable method of inferring intention: it’s a bedrock of anthropology that intention is unknowable without dialogue

Nor is machine learning likely to produce a reliable method of inferring intention: it’s a bedrock of anthropology that intention is unknowable without dialogue. As Cliff Geertz points out in his seminal 1973 essay, “Thick Description,” you cannot distinguish a “wink” (which means something) from a “twitch” (a meaningless reflex) without asking the person you’re observing which one it was. I see this and other examples of "explainability" from time to time as proof why humans are not a "Black Box." However it rests on two faulty assumptions. 1. The explanation will be truthful 2. The explainer can always reliably describe the actual cause of their own actions For the purposes of theory, you could explain away #1. However a minute of introspection will make you realize that you would fail at #2 the vast majority of the time - using story telling and retroactive explanations to explain your behavior.