A starting point for discussion
The idea
The author is more confident that laws could require human review than that suitable technologies to help people understand or take part in decisions could be created and shared in time.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
The author is more confident in laws requiring human review than in suitable enhancement technology being developed and shared in time.
Proposals to improve people’s abilities and require human review have limits
This distinguishes the relative uncertainty of legal and technological elements without establishing either as sufficient.
People need to understand decisions before they can check them
Review is characterized as more feasible than enhancement, but its practical adequacy is not established.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
A legal rule requiring review may be easier to put in place than technology that helps people understand or take part in decisions made by algorithms. The author is unsure whether that technology could reach people soon enough.
Why it matters
The proposed combination depends on one part whose timing and availability are uncertain.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the author manuscript from an accessible mirror; not the publisher typeset version. The passage treats legal change as relatively feasible, but the timing and availability of technology to help people take part as much less certain. Addresses: The proposed combination of human review and technology to help people take part.
Questions this connects to
AI-suggested relationships. Authors have not necessarily responded to one another.
How strong is this claim?
AI assessment · not a probability or a final resolution
The author explicitly contrasts the relative ease of legal change with uncertainty about the technology.