They said ethics demand that any AI that is going to pass judgment on humans must be able to explain its reasoning. An if-then rule says this, or even a statistical correlation between A and B indicates that would be fine. Fundamental fairness requires that if an automated system denies you a loan, a house, or a job, it be able to explain something you can challenge, fix, or at least understand.
LLMs may be able to provide that, but it would have to be carefully built into the system.
I believe the point is that it's much easier to create a plausible justification than an accurate justification. So simply requiring that the system produce some kind of explanation doesn't help, unless there are rigorous controls to make sure it's accurate.
That's a great point: funny, sad, and true.
My AI class predated LLMs. The implicit assumption was that the explanation had to be correct and verifiable, which may not be achievable with LLMs.
If your AI is *ist in effect but told not to be, it will just manifest as highlighting negative things more often for the people it has bad vibes for. Just like people will do.
That could get interesting, as most companies will not provide feedback if you are denied employment.