What you describe is quite different: humans may well mislead themselves or others when there is a reason to do so. But most of the time, if there is no cost or

What you describe is quite different: humans may well mislead themselves or others when there is a reason to do so. But most of the time, if there is no cost or benefit associated with an explanation, a human is fairly good (with great variability in both person and context) at assessing why they did something or said something, or why they reached a conclusion - and they can get better at doing so with practice. The fact the brain reaches decisions before we are consciously aware of them does not mean the brain does not tag decisioms with motives and other information necessary to explain them, though obviously we have to trust this information, and it may sometimes be wrong, but it has a pretty good track record and there’s no equivalent facility for AI today. This holds especially true for the kinds of actions taken by AI today which are usually deliberated thought processes for humans. This isn’t the same thing is saying all actions are explainable, but it is quite different to being a black box. In general, one only needs to question the explanations of a person if there is a good objective reason to do so. > It is well known with experimental evidence that when people justify their decisions with the reasoning leading to it, it does not necessarily have anything to do with the actual reasons for the decision Out of interest, what’s the highest quality evidence you are aware of in this area?