Using the Box to Think Outside It - Creative Scepticism and Computer Decision Support in Criminal Investigations

Keppens, J. and Schafer, B.

Proceedings of the IVR 21st World Congress Special Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in the Law: Creativity in Legal Problem Solving. Published online.

August 2003

Abstract

Papers on artificial intelligence frequently start with a reference to HAL, Stanely Kubrick’s famous computer. While HAL’s ability to understand and communicate in natural language is unmatched by any existing system, and its ability to learn, formulate its own plans and execute them are undoubtedly impressive, it is lacking a crucial aspe ct of creativity – the ability to question its own reasoning and its conclusions. HAL learns, but its learning is purely cumulative. It invents new methods of getting rid of its crew, but only because it follows unrelentingly and unquestioningly its initial assessment of the situation. Its catch phrase is “sorry Dan, I can’t do this”, not “What could I possibly do, however implausible at first sight, to sort this out”. In this respect, HAL compares disfavourably with another much less well known SF computer, Clark Dalton’s ContraComputer or CoCo. In the story, CoCo is employed aside a conventional board computer. Its only task is to develop alternative explanations of the available data, and to defend these alternative models vigorously in arguments. In doing so, it allows its human operators to “think outside the box”, to see alternative courses of action and to remain healthily sceptical regarding the solutions proposed by the main computer (or any other authority, for that matter) The ability to challenge conceived wisdom, to come up with the least plausible as well as the most plausible explanation consistent with the evidence, is all part of what we commonly understand as “creativity”. CoCo though has its problems too. To use it, you have the right level of security clearance. However, CoCo by its very nature, can always come up with a story consistent with the physical evidence you provide but not entailing your right to use CoCo. You might have stolen the security code, cut off the finger of the authorised person (fingerprints), cloned him entirely (DNA match) or you might i ndeed be an evil doppelganger from a parallel universe. Getting CoCo to work with you can therefore be an uphill struggle. Creativity unrestricted (or restricted only by a very weak concept of consiste ncy) can be as unproductive as unreflective rule- following. In this paper, we will first give a real life scenario which shows how desirable a suitably modified CoCo would be in a legal environment. In the second part, we describe attempts to build just such a system at the Joseph Bell Centre for Forensic Statistics and Legal Reasoning.

Download PDF document