A starting point for discussion
The idea
The proposed legal limit may be difficult to impose because technical, economic, political, and personal interests could stand in its way. The limit would require systems that use algorithms—methods for processing information or making decisions—to remain understandable to people.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
This identifies possible obstacles to imposing the proposed legal requirement for understandable systems.
Proposals to improve people’s abilities and require human review have limits
Technical, economic, political, and personal interests may make the legal limit difficult to impose, qualifying the proposal’s feasibility.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
The author identifies competing interests as possible barriers to requiring algorithmic systems to remain understandable.
Why it matters
A proposal that depends on law may fail if those interests prevent lawmakers from setting or enforcing the limit.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the author manuscript from an accessible mirror; not the publisher typeset version. The author explicitly cautions that such a restriction may not be possible. Addresses: The proposal to legally restrict systems that use algorithms, or methods for processing information or making decisions, to those humans can understand.
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
This is a qualified warning about feasibility, not a finding that the restriction is impossible.