For the same knowledge state—or for two equivalent cases twin agents—we must assign identical plausibility values. Consensus feels safe because individual accountability becomes diluted. Let us advocate for the logic of consistent reasoning from incomplete information rather than ontological randomness. This preserves the useful idea—structural consistency under incomplete information—without elevating consensus into a quasi-political or normative force.
Treating AI systems as epistemically “responsible agents” can obscure the fact that they are optimization systems with constraints, not deliberative entities with accountability structures.
Comment
For the same knowledge state—or for two equivalent cases twin agents—we must assign identical plausibility values. Consensus feels safe because individual accountability becomes diluted. Let us advocate for the logic of consistent reasoning from incomplete information rather than ontological randomness. This preserves the useful idea—structural consistency under incomplete information—without elevating consensus into a quasi-political or normative force. Treating AI systems as epistemically “responsible agents” can obscure the fact that they are optimization systems with constraints, not deliberative entities with accountability structures.