Oly Sourbut

Yeah, I think so.

There's pros and cons here.

I do think it means people need to be

careful and not just sort of naively adopt whatever thing gets spat out at the end, at least in high stakes situations.

The lawmaking case is pretty interesting actually, because, or even various kinds of judgment and decision-making.

Because these things can be repeatable, software is repeatable in a way which really no other process is.

Because it can be repeatable, it can be auditable.

and more transparent in principle than a process which involves a bunch of context, messy context being kind of put into a bunch of decision makers who then go into a room behind closed doors, come to some decision, which is then kind of brought out on a stone tablet.

This is a very illegible process.

And in principle,

more parts of that could be made legible.

And that might actually be a real benefit to society because going back to these kind of functions I mentioned in political scrutiny and auditing, it's going to be really important.

Like, why is it that people are coming to, or like, what were the considerations at least, which went into the decision that's being made there?

And that could be made more legible.

Yeah, I think the jury's out on that.

I've seen a fair bit of evidence that these kind of post hoc rationalizations are, as they are with humans, often basically confabulated.

Even if there's no kind of attempt at deception, it's sometimes hard to have introspective access to what were the reasons that you came to various decisions.

And so I don't think that's the best way necessarily to be, you know, a decision was made and then you ask, well, why was that decision made?

What's much better is if you can, by structure, make it so that as many as possible of the inputs into that decision are legible and potentially scrutinizable after the fact.

And so this looks more like what's the corpus which was being drawn from for extra context in this decision?