You should explain the point about «correcting for edge-cases and unknown-unknowns», which may not be clear.
>You should explain the point about «correcting for edge-cases and unknown-unknowns», which may not be clear.
Our learning is also for the most part Hebbian, from childhood through adulthood. For example, a DUI might force one to rethink their transport after a night-out. Right now, some of the "shocking" predictions have a child-like brutal honesty about them. Just as a child is coached not to call that bad aunty "fatty", an AI can thus be trained to conform to societal norms.
tl;dr: i am advocating for a realtime continuous learning system
The «continuous learning system» is either heuristic - an investigator - or an "artificial fool", of dubious utility (what is the use of something that "just has an opinion"). That poses an entity that reasons in a foundational context: why this and that.
If Kahneman - which I unfortunately have not yet had the time to read, though I was able to taste a bit of his interview by Lex Fridman - supposed that something "ineffable" oriented Einstein towards determinism and Bohr to more open stances, it is for their scientific work, valid on foundational grounds, that we remember them - not for their leanings.
--
¹Already a bit contradictory, if in school they teach you critical thought, as they did here since primary.
You have developed the capability of explaining your actions as resulting from your thoughts, because there is someone on the other side who is ready to accept and evaluate your explanations.
Others have no such affordance, so their brains get trained in prejudices and superstitions indead. Even if an explanation of an action is given in good faith and accepted by the recipient, it can still be factually incorrect.