How Should AI Interpret Rules? A Defense of Minimally Defeasible Interpretive Argumentation
Can artificially intelligent systems follow rules? The answer might seem an obvious `yes', in the sense that all (current) AI strictly acts in accordance with programming code constructed from highly formalized and well-defined rulesets. But here I refer to the kinds of rules expressed in human language that are the basis of laws, regulations, codes of conduct, ethical guidelines, and so on. The ability to follow such rules, and to reason about them, is not nearly as clear-cut as it seems on first analysis. Real-world rules are unavoidably rife with open-textured terms, which imbue rules with a possibly infinite set of possible interpretations. Narrowing down this set requires a complex reasoning process that is not yet within the scope of contemporary AI. This poses a serious problem for autonomous AI: If one cannot reason about open-textured terms, then one cannot reason about (or in accordance with) real-world rules. And if one cannot reason about real-world rules, then one cannot: follow human laws, comply with regulations, act in accordance with written agreements, or even obey mission-specific commands that are anything more than trivial. But before tackling these problems, we must first answer a more fundamental question: Given an open-textured rule, what is its correct interpretation? Or more precisely: How should our artificially intelligent systems determine which interpretation to consider correct? In this essay, I defend the following answer: Rule-following AI should act in accordance with the interpretation best supported by minimally defeasible interpretive arguments (MDIA).
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Deontic Meta-Rules
The use of meta-rules in logic, i.e., rules whose content includes other rules, has recently gained attention in the setting of non-monotonic reasoning: a first logical formalisation and efficient algorithms to compute t…
A Defeasible Calculus for Zetetic Agents
The study of defeasible reasoning unites epistemologists with those working in AI, in part, because both are interested in epistemic rationality. While it is traditionally thought to govern the formation and (with)holdin…
Automating Defeasible Reasoning in Law
The paper studies defeasible reasoning in rule-based systems, in particular about legal norms and contracts. We identify rule modifiers that specify how rules interact and how they can be overridden. We then define rule …
TranslationOn resolving conflicts between arguments
Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments for propositions; i.e., structured reasons justifying the belief in a proposition. Using defeasible rules, arguments need not be valid in all circum…
NegationvalidBenchmarking Defeasible Reasoning with Large Language Models -- Initial Experiments and Future Directions
Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained prominence in the AI landscape due to their exceptional performance. Thus, it is essential to gain a better understanding of their capabilities and limitations, among others in te…
Benchmarking