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 thisâ€, not “What could I
possibly do, however implausible at first sight, to sort this outâ€. 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 boxâ€, 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 “creativityâ€. 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