AM Waltermann, The Dual Challenge

Responsibility and AI

Antonia Waltermann, The dual challenge from AI and cognitive science

This lecture offers a theoretical framework for analysing the ways in which insights about human and artificial cognition challenge existing legal (reasoning) practices. It briefly touches on possible pathways to address these challenges as well.

1

The dual challenge from AI and the cognitive sciences (1)

1 / 3

Rawls distinguishes between justifications of a practice and within a practice; Mackor between internal and external questions. How are these distinctions connected?

Internal questions are of a practice, external questions are within a practice.

Internal questions are within a practice, external questions are of a practice.

There is no link between the distinctions; they talk about different things.

2 / 3

Alces and Sapolsky (2022) hold that current legal practices undermine human thriving, because they rely on a misconception of what it means to be human. Where would you situate this view in the framework developed in this lecture?

Internal, application

Internal, conceptions

External, implications

3 / 3

There have been some cases of men who developed uncontrollable paedophilia due to the growth of a brain tumour. Consider the question what, if any, role the insight that acquired paedophilia can be a consequence of cancer in the orbitofrontal region of the brain play in the sentencing of individuals. Where would you situate this question in the framework developed in this lecture?

Internal, application

Internal, conceptions

External, implications

Your score is

0

The dual challenge from AI and the cognitive sciences (2)

1 / 3

Why and in what way can the distinction between theoretical and practical reason be said to lead to the conclusion that there can be no inconsistency between legal practices and insights from the cognitive sciences?

Because insights from the cognitive sciences belong to the realm of theoretical reason and existing legal practices to the realm of practical reason, they do not talk about the same thing, so there can be no inconsistency.

Because insights from the cognitive sciences belong to the realm of practical reason and existing legal practices to the realm of theoretical reason, they do not talk about the same thing, so there can be no inconsistency.

Because insights from the cognitive sciences belong to the realm of theoretical reason and existing legal practices to the realm of practical reason, there is no need for consistsency between them.

2 / 3

What distinguishes practical from theoretical reason?

Practical reason is concerned with questions of action while theoretical reason is concerned with the question "what is theory?"

Practical reason is concerned with questions of action while theoretical reason is concerned with questions of fact

Practical reason is concerned with questions of belief while theoretical reason is concerned with questions of fact

3 / 3

The lecture identifies three different possibilities regarding the consistency between legal practices and insights about human/artificial cognition. What are they? That law and insights…

… need to be consistent, should be consistent, or can be consistent.

… need not be consistent, should be consistent, or cannot be inconsistent.

… need not be consistent, should not be consistent, or cannot be inconsistent.

Your score is

Responsibility and AI

Antonia Waltermann, The dual challenge from AI and cognitive science

Lecture Part 1

Part 2

Quiz 1

Quiz 2