
Luhmann, or: An AI Answer Is Not a Decision
State v. Loomis shows how a score becomes a decision premise — and why its status, appeal route, and owner must be documented.
Topic
9 pieces

State v. Loomis shows how a score becomes a decision premise — and why its status, appeal route, and owner must be documented.

A very new working paper proposes a boundary for intelligence. AlphaZero reveals what its criteria explain — and what they do not yet establish.

The off-switch game creates an incentive for correction — and its extensions show why uncertainty is not enough.

Project Cybersyn shows why an impressive control architecture is not yet effective regulation.

Stafford Beer supplies the organizational backbone. Stuart Russell tests corrigibility; Bernard Jennings offers a young and explicitly provisional challenge to equating throughput with intelligence.

Bernard Jennings describes an internal architecture of intelligent systems. A critical reading separates that criterion from the organizational architecture of decision authority.

Once an AI output is tied to thresholds, defaults, and authority, it changes the decision system.
On pseudo-precision — when a correct calculation claims more than its evidence can support. Ours included.

A working term for useful and responsible cooperation between people and AI systems inside organizations.