> The second question is what distinguishes human and procedural decisionmaking. Nothing, because any procedure that exists was necessarily defined by humans.

> The second question is what distinguishes human and procedural decisionmaking. Nothing, because any procedure that exists was necessarily defined by humans. If the procedure is implemented by a computer, at most that provides humans an excuse for choosing not to disregard an outcome it produces. > Another thing is that Weizenbaum and the author seem to take it for granted that human decisionmaking is literally magic I can't imagine where this idea is coming from. The thrust of the argument is not that human decisions can't be modeled, but that omitting the question of whether they should be modeled, and those models granted (what is necessarily the pretense of) authority to make decisions in human stead, evades the same sort of responsibility that a civil engineer has to ensure that his bridge design can withstand the mechanical loads that it will bear in use.