{"text":[[{"start":4.95,"text":"When xAI sued the state of Colorado over a law against “algorithmic discrimination” this month, it marked a political stand-off brought on by a rapidly changing technological reality. But more profoundly, the suit raises questions about what it is to be a democracy, and what it is to be human."}],[{"start":22.55,"text":"The law targets AI systems used in the provision of certain services, including education, housing, health and finance, some of them from the government. In passing it, Colorado lawmakers have defied much of the AI industry as well as the White House’s push for a single federal set of AI rules. "}],[{"start":40,"text":"Now Elon Musk’s xAI, which developed the large language model Grok, wants the law struck down because, it alleges, it infringes on the company’s free speech rights and forces it to change Grok to incorporate what it calls the controversial viewpoints of legislators. "}],[{"start":56.45,"text":"The company clearly protests too much. The law requires transparency over risks of bias and a duty of care to avoid unlawful discrimination. At most, Grok cannot be used for allocation decisions in the sectors designated by Colorado’s government. "}],[{"start":72.2,"text":"But beyond the narrow legal questions, there is a much more interesting and deeper matter at stake here. What the Colorado law does is to sweep AI-powered decision-making inside a fundamental demand for justification. The basic ground for doing this is that “my AI said so” is not enough to justify allocation decisions of certain goods and services where there is reason to fear unjust discrimination."}],[{"start":98.45,"text":"Why not? One reason is democratic. Giving legitimate reasons for how we are treated is at the core of the rule of law: the exercise of power must follow publicly known rules that apply to all. This is doubly true for electoral democracies where not just the structure of the law, but those writing and wielding it, should be accountable to citizens for the substantive choices they make."}],[{"start":122.15,"text":"The very term “accountable” is revealing. In democracies ruled by law, those who wield power must account for what they do — in other words, give adequate justifications and reasons — and be held to account by those subject to their decisions."}],[{"start":136.1,"text":"This role of justification and reason-giving was central to the political theories of the late German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, as well as the American thinker John Rawls. But justification matters in interpersonal relations too. "}],[{"start":152.15,"text":"When we want to convince someone to agree with us or persuade them to do something we want, we are called on to justify our demand. Forcing agreement or obedience without justification is abusive, a failure of basic respect. The fundamental human intuition behind Habermas’s and Rawls’s theories is that as citizens and simply as people, we owe it to each other to give reasons. "}],[{"start":176.85,"text":"Unfair discrimination itself can be understood in this light: it happens when some groups get less of something valuable than others, for no justifiable reason. So at one level, Colorado is simply demanding that AI systems must provide whatever reasons are satisfactory to justify differential treatment as legal — as in all other cases."}],[{"start":198.54999999999998,"text":"The complaint shows that xAI is particularly incensed at how Colorado’s law excludes biases designed to “increase diversity or redress historical discrimination” from the definition of algorithmic discrimination. This is indeed an odd choice by the legislature, which could have simply deferred to existing anti-discrimination laws on the question of whether such positive discrimination is permissible (for this, too, justifications can and should be given). "}],[{"start":226.7,"text":"Ironically enough, xAI’s brief in itself constitutes an earnest effort (albeit an unsuccessful one) at justification. The company — or at least its lawyers — grasp the need to offer reasons that others might deem legitimate. The more difficult question is whether LLMs such as Grok can themselves fully justify the answers they give and decisions they make. "}],[{"start":249.14999999999998,"text":"Suppose, for example, a Colorado landlord or triage clinician uses Grok to decide who gets the house or the hospital bed — but makes sure to require the model back up its input with reasons. What then? If Grok can adequately justify decisions as not violating discrimination law, and its developers can document this to users, that should fulfil the new law’s demands. The deeper human requirement for justification, however, requires much more."}],[{"start":277,"text":"Even if LLMs can provide a trace of their “reasoning”, that is not enough. When we admit that we owe each other justifications, we recognise each other as equals, with all the moral commitment to reciprocity that this entails. That is a commitment which — so far — only humans can make."}],[{"start":301.65,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1777185563_3130.mp3"}