27 ms·
> if we are probabilistic systems, we presumably can't actually do things like rationalise, or design things like legal systems. Why not? Computers can reason
by state_less 6y ago
> if we are probabilistic systems, we presumably can't actually do things like rationalise, or design things like legal systems.
Why not? Computers can reason and have constructed proofs. Probably a computer could construct legal arguments too. They might have some probability for errors (e.g. cosmic rays) that need to be accounted for and corrected, just like humans.
> But if we want a picture that lets us keep some of our current view of human life, it is not clear that bringing probabilistic systems into the picture helps any.
It might help people understand why people murder, or commit crime. Criminals might have errors that need to be corrected rather than focusing on a crime that needs to be punished.
- scooble 6y agoRationalising is a kind of ethical reasoning - constructing an account of something that shows it to be consistent with a wider body of ethical beliefs. So in your example, the idea of agency is a way of making the idea of responsibility mesh with our belief that things should be fair. It is not clear to me that a computer can hold ethical beliefs, or that it would be troubled when some other beliefs are inconsistent with those beliefs and motivated to find a rationalisation that makes them compatible.