Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

How good does artificial intelligence need to be before we can turn to a robot for piskei halacha?

The accepted reason that even the most knowledgeable people need to ask legal advice from poskim is that the poskim possess special situational knowledge, experience, and sensitivity that most or all other people lack. Simulating [things like] these characteristics also happens to be the goal (or at least a milestone) of artificial intelligence research. When some AI reaches the necessary threshhold for humanness in these regards will it be reliable to issue individualized p'sak as well?

If not, will it be concomitantly forbidden to ask a question by email, over the phone, or by any other electronic means because of the concern that the answerer is pasul l'hora'a?

share|improve this question
3  
Do we have a sci-fi tag yet? :-) –  Dave Feb 22 '11 at 5:09
    
Are you suggesting that we build our own Watson? –  Tzvi Feb 22 '11 at 16:01
    
See also mi.yodeya.com/questions/6979 –  msh210 Apr 24 '11 at 18:46
    
@Tzvi, No, Watson is the opposite of what this is all about. Watson works by executing very complex algorithms to come to a solution. I believe this question is asking about an AI that understands things in a human way. (Don't ask me if such a thing is possible. That's been a huge debate in the computer science, cognitive science, and philosophy worlds for decades). –  Daniel May 8 '13 at 13:54
add comment

2 Answers

No amount of AI will be able to simulate Siyata Dishmaya. Heavenly assistance factors heavily into accurate psak. Just ask any posek.

A good posek also brings to bear a healthy intuition of how he would rule, even before he begins his analysis.

Think of a good physician with years of experience. As soon as she just looks at your child, she has a pretty good idea of what's wrong. This type of skill cannot be replicated by a machine.

Gary Kasporov also brings human intution into a decision when considering his next move on the chess board, which Deep Blue couldn't match. It only won with brute force (i.e. considering virtually every possible move before deciding). This is possible in chess where success/failure can be mathematically calculated. It doesn't work with pattern matching, which is what's needed in psak.

share|improve this answer
    
"It doesn't work with pattern matching, which is what's needed in psak." Have you seen the pattern recognition literature? They are working on that too. (Just one example: ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4767034) How do you know that siyata diShmaya or at least intuition cannot be simulated given sufficient processing power and time? –  WAF Feb 23 '11 at 1:46
    
Torah lives in the opinions of our Sages. See B"M 59b that the law follows the majority even when "wrong". This is certainly only true for human opinion, not digital opinion. –  Barry Mar 8 '11 at 21:40
    
@Barry - So if the disqualification of a robot comes down to a binary exclusion of non-humans then the question shifts slightly away from artificial intelligence and toward artificial humanity. How close to human would a robot/cyborg need to be to be kasher l'hora'a (assuming, of course, the other prerequisites: mi.yodeya.com/questions/6979)? –  WAF Apr 24 '11 at 19:14
add comment

To support what Barry said:

  • There is an element of Divine assistance when the flesh-and-blood rabbi is called upon to rule (assuming he's qualified and doing his best).
  • We are easily decades (if not more) away from artificial intelligence vis-a-vis a lot of the skills that are needed for good psak. For instance, a young rabbi was training with Rabbi Moshe Feinstein; he saw two instances where a woman brought the same type of questionably-kosher chicken to Rabbi Feinstein, who prohibited the first and permitted the second. Rav Moshe explained that the first woman struck him as someone who wouldn't be stressed by throwing out one chicken, so he had her do so; but he could tell that the second woman desperately needed that chicken.
share|improve this answer
    
Do you mean permitted the second? –  Adam Mosheh Apr 17 '12 at 14:30
    
@AdamMosheh -- thank you! –  Shalom Apr 18 '12 at 0:28
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.