Thanks, but enough neuroscience studies have shown that our decisions are for the most part, on autopilot, qv: Kahneman, Tversky et al. All our "explanations" are post-hoc rationalization i.e. reality is the narrative we tell ourselves.

>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

Let us take the «continuous learning system» that is «coached»: very hopefully, it will not be literally «to conform to societal norms»¹, but to understand why it is appropriate or inappropriate to «call [the] aunty» one way or another.

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.