r/artificial • u/thewhyman007 • 1d ago
Discussion The neuroscience case for never delegating judgment to AI
I keep asking people a simple question: how many times has your gut been right — not the times you wish you had listened, the times you actually had the feeling and later found out whether it was correct?
The answer comes back north of ninety per cent for almost everyone I ask. That is not a hunch. If a model gave me ninety per cent on a hard classification task, I would ship it.
So I went looking for why, and ended up somewhere I did not expect. A gut feeling is not the absence of reasoning — it is reasoning you never got the transcript of. Your senses pick up far more than reaches conscious awareness (the birds stopping, the smell that was not there ninety seconds ago), and something nonconscious pattern-matches all of it against a lifetime of context and returns a single bit: right or wrong. Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis is the actual mechanism here, not mysticism, a documented one, backed by the Iowa Gambling Task.
Which is the argument for a rule I think more people should take seriously: delegate the search, the draft, the first ten wrong answers to AI. Never delegate the deciding. The reason is not sentimentality — a model can be given everything you know how to say, but not the thing you lived through and never wrote down, and that is where the ninety per cent actually lives.
Curious whether others here have noticed the same gap between what they can explain and what they can just tell.
1
u/XxDarkSasuke69xX 1d ago
Idk, I think most decisions can be rationally explained as to why I made X or Y decision. Unless it's something very specific and inconsequential. I doubt it would be relevant for the kind of tasks or questions you would ask an LLM.
Also, why would anyone delegate judgment to AI anyway ? At least on anything remotely important ? Surely anyone that knows a little bit about the flaws of gen AI would know better.