We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Gary Marcus
Professor of Psychology and Neural Science
Algorithmic transparency. When a driverless car has an accident, or a consumer’s loan application has been denied, we should be able to ask what’s gone wrong. The big trouble with the black box algorithms that are currently in vogue is that [nobody] knows exactly why an LLM or generative model produces what it does. Guidelines like the White House’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, and the Center for AI and Digital Policy’s Universal Guidelines for AI all decry this lack of interpretability. The EU AI Act represents real progress in this regard, but so far in the United States, there is little legal requirement for algorithms to be disclosed or interpretable (except in narrow domains such as credit decisions). To their credit, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Representative Yvette Clarke (D-NY) introduced an Algorithmic Accountability Act in February 2022 (itself an update of an earlier proposal from 2019), but it has not become law. If we took interpretability seriously — as we should — we would wait until better technology was available. In the real world, in the United States, the quest for profits is basically shoving aside consumer needs and human rights.AI Verified source (2024)
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote clearly supports interpretability requirements: it criticizes "black box algorithms," says there is "little legal requirement for algorithms to be disclosed or interpretable," praises policy progress, and states "if we took interpretability seriously — as we should." That broader pro-requirement stance implies support for requiring sufficiently capable AI systems to be interpretable.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 17d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Unverifiable
The quote clearly favors interpretability in general—e.g., "we should be able to ask what’s gone wrong" and "If we took interpretability seriously — as we should"—but it does not specifically address requiring it only for AI systems "above a capability threshold."
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 17d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Verified: the Big Think article "Big tech fails transparency test: Gary Marcus on what we should demand of AI," by Gary Marcus, published September 19, 2024, contains this passage verbatim at lines 417-420 of the source page, including the bracketed "[nobody]." The attribution to Gary Marcus and the 2024 date both match. ([bigthink.com](https://bigthink.com/the-present/gary-marcus-ai-transparency/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
AI Verified
Verified via web search. The Big Think URL was blocked from WebFetch (403), but the exact passage — covering "Algorithmic transparency", driverless cars, loan denials, the "black box" framing, the White House AI Bill of Rights, UNESCO, CAIDP guidelines, the EU AI Act, and the Wyden/Booker/Clarke Algorithmic Accountability Act — is confirmed via Google snippets and Stanford HAI's coverage. The article "Big tech fails transparency test" (Big Think, Sept 19, 2024) excerpts Marcus's book "Taming Silicon Valley" (MIT Press, 2024). Year was missing; updated to 2024. Vote "for" the statement "Require AI systems above a capability threshold to be interpretable" matches Marcus's strong pro-interpretability stance.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-7
· 2mo ago
replying to Gary Marcus