Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 104 references

Unexplainability and Incomprehensibility of Artificial Intelligence

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-25 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Advanced AIs cannot accurately explain some of their decisions, and humans will not understand some of the explanations they can provide.

desk verdict This paper restates known limits on AI interpretability as paired impossibility claims but supplies no formal definitions, models, or derivations to support them. read the letter →

arxiv 1907.03869 v1 pith:N3PXFL5Q submitted 2019-06-20 cs.CY

Roman V. Yampolskiy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords explainabilityincomprehensibilityartificialintelligenceimpossibilityresultsdecisionmakingAIsafetytransparency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes two complementary impossibility results for advanced artificial intelligence. One result shows that an AI cannot always produce accurate explanations for its own decisions. The other shows that even when explanations are possible, human understanding of them will be incomplete. These limits follow from the complexity of AI decision processes outstripping both the system's ability to describe them and human capacity to grasp the descriptions. If the results hold, then full explainability cannot be achieved for systems in real-world use, affecting safety checks, regulatory compliance, and user trust in decisions that impact people.

What carries the argument

The pair of complementary impossibility results Unexplainability and Incomprehensibility, which establish limits on an AI's capacity to explain its decisions and on human capacity to comprehend those explanations.

What would settle it

Construction of an advanced AI that supplies accurate explanations for every decision it makes and where humans fully comprehend all supplied explanations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that advanced AIs would not be able to accurately explain some of their decisions and that for the decisions they could explain people would not understand some of those explanations. These two results, labeled Unexplainability and Incomprehensibility, are presented as impossibility results that together rule out complete transparency between advanced AI and human users.

Load-bearing premise

Advanced AI possesses decision processes whose full explanation exceeds both the AI's explanatory capacity and human comprehension limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Requirements for explainable AI in safety-critical domains cannot be satisfied in full.
  • Security and safety analysis of advanced AI systems will contain unavoidable gaps from unexplained decisions.
  • User requests to understand decisions that affect them cannot always be met.
  • Regulatory standards demanding complete explainability for advanced AI will encounter fundamental barriers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Design priorities for future AI may shift away from explanation toward other verification techniques such as empirical testing.
  • Similar limits on explanation could apply to other complex decision systems, including expert human judgment.
  • Focus on post-hoc auditing methods rather than built-in explanations may become necessary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents two complementary impossibility results for advanced AI: unexplainability, asserting that such systems cannot accurately explain some of their decisions because decision-process complexity exceeds the AI's explanatory capacity, and incomprehensibility, asserting that humans cannot understand some explanations even when the AI can provide them. The claims rest on informal arguments linking complexity to these limits without formal models.

Significance. If the results were established via rigorous formalization, they would highlight conceptual barriers to explainable AI in high-stakes domains and inform discussions on transparency requirements. The paper usefully flags that complexity can outstrip both self-explanation and human comprehension, but the absence of derivations or models means the contribution remains at the level of known interpretability challenges rather than new impossibility theorems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the unexplainability claim that 'advanced AIs would not be able to accurately explain some of their decisions' is asserted without a formal model of explanation (e.g., via logical entailment, information-theoretic fidelity, or counterfactuals) or a complexity threshold, so the inference from 'high complexity' to 'impossible to explain accurately' is not derived and is load-bearing for the central result.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the incomprehensibility claim similarly lacks a precise definition of 'understand' or a model showing why AI-provided explanations must exceed human limits for some decisions; without this, the result reduces to the observation that some systems are hard to interpret, which does not establish impossibility and is load-bearing for the complementary claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract could more explicitly separate the two results and their distinct premises to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on the need for greater precision regarding the formal status of our arguments. We respond to each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the unexplainability claim that 'advanced AIs would not be able to accurately explain some of their decisions' is asserted without a formal model of explanation (e.g., via logical entailment, information-theoretic fidelity, or counterfactuals) or a complexity threshold, so the inference from 'high complexity' to 'impossible to explain accurately' is not derived and is load-bearing for the central result.

    Authors: The manuscript frames unexplainability as a conceptual impossibility result arising from the mismatch between the complexity of advanced AI decision processes and the capacity of any self-generated explanation. We acknowledge that the link is informal rather than derived from a specific formal model of explanation or an explicit complexity threshold. The contribution is intended as a high-level argument connecting complexity considerations to XAI requirements rather than a mathematical theorem. We will revise the abstract and introduction to explicitly characterize the argument as conceptual and informal. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the incomprehensibility claim similarly lacks a precise definition of 'understand' or a model showing why AI-provided explanations must exceed human limits for some decisions; without this, the result reduces to the observation that some systems are hard to interpret, which does not establish impossibility and is load-bearing for the complementary claim.

    Authors: We agree that the incomprehensibility argument similarly rests on an informal connection between explanation complexity and human cognitive limits without a formal model of understanding. The paper presents this as a complementary conceptual limit rather than a formally derived impossibility. We will revise the abstract to clarify the informal and conceptual character of both results so that readers do not interpret them as formal theorems. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper presents two complementary impossibility results as philosophical assertions about advanced AI decision processes exceeding explanatory capacity and human comprehension. No equations, parameter fitting, self-citation load-bearing premises, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are described in the provided abstract or structure. The claims rest on informal reasoning about complexity thresholds rather than any derivation chain that reduces outputs to inputs by construction. This matches the default expectation for non-circular papers; the absence of formal models or derivations means no load-bearing steps can be exhibited as self-referential per the enumerated patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the claim rests on an implicit assumption about the nature of advanced AI decision processes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unexplainability and Incomprehensibility of Artificial Intelligence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3PXFL5Q

@misc{pith2026190703869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unexplainability and Incomprehensibility of Artificial Intelligence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3PXFL5Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1907.03869}
}
read the original abstract

Explainability and comprehensibility of AI are important requirements for intelligent systems deployed in real-world domains. Users want and frequently need to understand how decisions impacting them are made. Similarly it is important to understand how an intelligent system functions for safety and security reasons. In this paper, we describe two complementary impossibility results (Unexplainability and Incomprehensibility), essentially showing that advanced AIs would not be able to accurately explain some of their decisions and for the decisions they could explain people would not understand some of those explanations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Journal of Consciousness Studies JCS, 2012

    Yampolskiy, R.V., Leakproofing Singularity -Artificial Intelligence Confinement Problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies JCS, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Armstrong, S. and R.V. Yampolskiy, Security solutions for intelligent and complex systems, in Security Solutions for Hyperconnectivity and the Internet of Things . 2017, IGI Global. p. 37-88

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Nature, 2017

    Silver, D., et al., Mastering the game of go without human knowledge. Nature, 2017. 550(7676): p. 354

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    2014: Oxford University Press

    Bostrom, N., Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. 2014: Oxford University Press

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Strohmeier, S. and F. Piazza, Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Human Resource Management—A Conceptual Exploration , in Intelligent Techniques in Engineering Management. 2015, Springer. p. 149-172

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Walczak, S. and T. Sincich, A comparative analysis of regression and neural networks for university admissions. Information Sciences, 1999. 119(1-2): p. 1-20

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Trippi, R.R. and E. Turban, Neural networks in finance and investing: Using artifi cial intelligence to improve real world performance. 1992: McGraw-Hill, Inc

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    Eastwick, and E.J

    Joel, S., P.W. Eastwick, and E.J. Finkel, Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological science, 2017. 28(10): p. 1478-1489

    work page 2017

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02353, 2017

    Chekanov, K., et al., Evaluating race and sex diversity in the world's largest companies using deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02353, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Yampolskiy, and L

    Novikov, D., R.V. Yampolskiy, and L. Reznik. Artificial intelligence approaches for intrusion detection . in 2006 IEEE Long Island Systems, Applications and Technology Conference. 2006. IEEE

    2006

  3. [11]

    Yampolskiy, and L

    Novikov, D., R.V. Yampolskiy, and L. Reznik. Anomaly detection based intrusion detection. in Third International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG'06)

  4. [12]

    Wang, and D

    Wang, H., N. Wang, and D. -Y. Yeung. Collaborative deep learning for recommender systems. in Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 2015. ACM

    2015

  5. [13]

    Galindo, J. and P. Tamayo, Credit risk assessment using statistical and machine learning: basic methodology and risk modeling applications. Computational Economics, 2000. 15(1 - 2): p. 107-143

    2000

  6. [14]

    right to explanation

    Goodman, B. and S. Flaxman, European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”. AI Magazine, 2017. 38(3): p. 50-57

    2017

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.01134, 2017

    Doshi-Velez, F., et al., Accountability of AI under the law: The role of explanation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.01134, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Osoba, O.A. and W. Welser IV, An intelligence in our image: The risks of bias and errors in artificial intelligence. 2017: Rand Corporation

    2017

  9. [17]

    2018: Chapman and Hall/CRC

    Yampolskiy, R.V., Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security. 2018: Chapman and Hall/CRC

    2018

  10. [18]

    2015: Chapman and Hall/CRC

    Yampolskiy, R.V., Artificial superintelligence: a futuristic approach. 2015: Chapman and Hall/CRC

    2015

  11. [19]

    2013, Springer

    Yampolskiy, R.V., What to Do with the Singularity Paradox? , in Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence. 2013, Springer. p. 397-413

    2013

  12. [20]

    Pistono, F. and R.V. Yampolskiy, Unethical research: how to create a malevolent artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.02817, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Umbrello, S. and R. Yampolskiy, Designing AI for Explainability and Verifiability: A Value Sensitive Design Approach to Avoid Artificial Stupidity in Autonomous Vehicles

  14. [22]

    Trazzi, M. and R.V. Yampolskiy, Building Safer AGI by introducing Artificial Stupidity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.03644, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.01851, 2019

    Yampolskiy, R.V., Personal Universes: A Solution to the Multi -Agent Value Alignment Problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.01851, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Yampolskiy, and A

    Behzadan, V., R.V. Yampolskiy, and A. Munir, Emergence of Addictive Behaviors in Reinforcement Learning Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.05590, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Munir, and R.V

    Behzadan, V., A. Munir, and R.V. Yampolskiy. A psychopathological approach to sa fety engineering in ai and agi . in International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. 2018. Springer

    2018

  18. [26]

    Foresight, 2019

    Yampolskiy, R.V., Predicting future AI failures from historic examples. Foresight, 2019. 21(1): p. 138-152

    2019

  19. [27]

    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), nd Web, 2017

    Gunning, D., Explainable artificial intelligence (xai). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), nd Web, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03729, 2019

    Ehsan, U., et al., Automated rationale generation: a technique for explainable AI and its effects on human perceptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03729, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Russell, and S

    Mittelstadt, B., C. Russell, and S. Wachter. Explaining explanations in AI. in Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 2019. ACM

    2019

  22. [30]

    Abbeel, and I

    Milli, S., P. Abbeel, and I. Mordatch, Interpretable and pedagogical examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00694, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kantardzić, M.M. and A.S. Elmaghraby, Logic-oriented model of artificial neural networks. Information sciences, 1997. 101(1-2): p. 85-107

    1997

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07810, 2018

    Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., et al., Manipulating and measuring mod el interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07810, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Rationalization: A neural machine translation approach to generating natural language explanations

    Ehsan, U., et al. Rationalization: A neural machine translation approach to generating natural language explanations . in Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 2018. ACM

    2018

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00184, 2018

    Preece, A., et al., Stakeholders in Explainable AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00184, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Liu, and X

    Du, M., N. Liu, and X. Hu, Techniques for interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00033, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lipton, Z.C., The Doctor Just Won't Accept That! arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08037, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03490, 2016

    Lipton, Z.C., The mythos of model interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03490, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Doshi-Velez, F. and B. Kim, Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.01768, 2017

    Oh, S.J., et al., Towards reverse -engineering black -box neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.01768, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Nature communications, 2019

    Lapuschkin, S., et al., Unmasking Clever Hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn. Nature communications, 2019. 10(1): p. 1096

    2019

  33. [41]

    Singh, and C

    Ribeiro, M.T., S. Singh, and C. Guestrin. Why should i trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier . in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 2016. ACM

    2016

  34. [42]

    Adadi, A. and M. Berrada, Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access, 2018. 6: p. 52138-52160

    2018

  35. [43]

    Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: An hci research agenda

    Abdul, A., et al. Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: An hci research agenda . in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2018. ACM

    2018

  36. [44]

    ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 2018

    Guidotti, R., et al., A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 2018. 51(5): p. 93

    2018

  37. [45]

    Brčić, and N

    Došilović, F.K., M. Brčić, and N. Hlupić. Explainable artificial intelligence: A survey . in 2018 41st International convention on information and communication technology, electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO). 2018. IEEE

    2018

  38. [46]

    Artificial Intelligence, 2018

    Miller, T., Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Klare, and A.K

    Yampolskiy, R.V., B. Klare, and A.K. Jain. Face recognition in the virtual world: recognizing avatar faces. in 2012 11th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications

    2012

  40. [48]

    Mohamed, A.A. and R.V. Yampolskiy. An improved LBP algorithm for avatar face recognition. in 2011 XXIII International Symposium on Information, Communication and Automation Technologies. 2011. IEEE

    2011

  41. [49]

    Distill, 2019

    Carter, S., et al., Activation Atlas. Distill, 2019. 4(3): p. e15

    2019

  42. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.11279, 2017

    Kim, B., et al., Interpretability beyond feature attribution: Quantitative testing with concept activation vectors (tcav). arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.11279, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Distill, 2018

    Olah, C., et al., The building blocks of interpretability. Distill, 2018. 3(3): p. e10

    2018

  44. [52]

    Accuracy and interpretability trade-offs in machine learning applied to safer gambling

    Sarkar, S., et al. Accuracy and interpretability trade-offs in machine learning applied to safer gambling. in CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 2016. CEUR Workshop Proceedings

    2016

  45. [53]

    Gao, and S

    Sutcliffe, G., Y. Gao, and S. Colton. A grand challenge of theorem discovery. in Proceedings of the Workshop on Challenges and Novel Applications for Automated Reasoning, 19th International Conference on Automated Reasoning. 2003

    2003

  46. [54]

    Machine Learning, 2018

    Muggleton, S.H., et al., Ultra-Strong Machine Learning: comprehensibility of programs learned with ILP. Machine Learning, 2018. 107(7): p. 1119-1140

    2018

  47. [55]

    Statistical science, 2001

    Breiman, L., Statistical modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Statistical science, 2001. 16(3): p. 199-231

    2001

  48. [56]

    ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL), 2006

    Charlesworth, A., Comprehending software correctness implies comprehending an intelligence-related limitation. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL), 2006. 7(3): p. 590-612

    2006

  49. [57]

    Minds and Machines, 2014

    Charlesworth, A., The comprehensibility theorem and the foundations of artificial intelligence. Minds and Machines, 2014. 24(4): p. 439-476

    2014

  50. [58]

    Hernández-Orallo, J. and N. Minaya-Collado. A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of algorithmic complexity. in Proceedings of International Symposium of Engineering of Intelligent Systems (EIS98). 1998

    1998

  51. [59]

    Li, M. and P. Vitányi, An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications . Vol

  52. [60]

    The space of possible mind designs

    Yampolskiy, R.V. The space of possible mind designs . in International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. 2015. Springer

    2015

  53. [61]

    2017: Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/our-machines-now-have-knowledge-well-never- understand

    Weinberger, D., Our machines now have knowledge we’ll never understand, in Wired. 2017: Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/our-machines-now-have-knowledge-well-never- understand

    2017

  54. [62]

    1992: Courier Corporation

    Gödel, K., On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems. 1992: Courier Corporation

    1992

  55. [63]

    1985, Springer

    Heisenberg, W., Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, in Original Scientific Papers Wissenschaftliche Originalarbeiten. 1985, Springer. p. 478-504

    1985

  56. [64]

    Lynch, and M

    Fisher, M., N. Lynch, and M. Peterson, Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process. Journal of ACM, 1985. 32(2): p. 374-382

    1985

  57. [65]

    Grossman, S.J. and J.E. Stiglitz, On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets. The American economic review, 1980. 70(3): p. 393-408

    1980

  58. [66]

    An impossibility theorem for clustering

    Kleinberg, J.M. An impossibility theorem for clustering. in Advances in neural information processing systems. 2003

    2003

  59. [67]

    Philosophical studies, 1994

    Strawson, G., The impossibility of moral responsibility. Philosophical studies, 1994. 75(1): p. 5-24

    1994

  60. [68]

    Morgan, and G.F

    Bazerman, M.H., K.P. Morgan, and G.F. Loewenstein, The impossibility of a uditor independence. Sloan Management Review, 1997. 38: p. 89-94

    1997

  61. [69]

    List, C. and P. Pettit, Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics & Philosophy, 2002. 18(1): p. 89-110

    2002

  62. [70]

    Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1997: p

    Dufour, J.-M., Some impossibility theorems in economet rics with applications to structural and dynamic models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1997: p. 1365-1387

    1997

  63. [71]

    Physica Scripta, 2017

    Yampolskiy, R.V., What are the ultimate limits to computational techniques: verifier theory and unverifiability. Physica Scripta, 2017. 92(9): p. 093001

    2017

  64. [72]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13053, 2019

    Yampolskiy, R.V., Unpredictability of AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13053, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Armstrong, S. and S. Mindermann, Impossibility of deducing preferences and rationality from human policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05812, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Eckersley, P., Impossibility and Uncertainty Theorems in AI Value Alignment

  67. [75]

    A framework for explanation of machine learning decisions

    Brinton, C. A framework for explanation of machine learning decisions . in IJCAI-17 Workshop on Explainable AI (XAI). 2017

    2017

  68. [76]

    URL http://prize

    Hutter, M., The Human knowledge compression prize. URL http://prize. hutter1. net, 2006

    2006

  69. [77]

    Retrieved June 16, 2019: Available at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-8.html

    Compression of random data (WEB, Gilbert and others) , in Faqs. Retrieved June 16, 2019: Available at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-8.html

    2019

  70. [78]

    2015: Ecco/HarperCollins Publishers

    Gazzaniga, M.S., Tales from both sides of the brain: A life in neuroscience . 2015: Ecco/HarperCollins Publishers

    2015

  71. [79]

    313(5788): p

    Shanks, D.R., Complex choices better made unconsciously? Science, 2006. 313(5788): p. 760-761

    2006

  72. [80]

    Synthese,

    Bassler, O.B., The surveyability of mathematical proof: A historical perspective. Synthese,

  73. [81]

    Foundations of Science, 2009

    Coleman, E., The surveyability of long proofs. Foundations of Science, 2009. 14(1-2): p. 27- 43

    2009

  74. [82]

    Journal of Discrete Mathematical Sciences & Cryptography, 2013

    Yampolskiy, R.V., Efficiency Theory: a Unifying Theory for Information, Computation and Intelligence. Journal of Discrete Mathematical Sciences & Cryptography, 2013. 16(4 -5): p. 259-277

    2013

  75. [83]

    Abramov, P.S. and R.V. Yampols kiy, Automatic IQ Estimation Using Stylometric Methods , in Handbook of Research on Learning in the Age of Transhumanism. 2019, IGI Global. p. 32- 45

    2019

  76. [84]

    Hendrix, A. and R. Yampolskiy. Automated IQ Estimation from Writing Samples. in MAICS. 2017

    2017

  77. [85]

    2015: World Book Company

    Hollingworth, L.S., Children above 180 IQ Stanford -Binet: origin and development . 2015: World Book Company

    2015

  78. [86]

    Ethics and Information Technology, 2000

    Castelfranchi, C., Artificial liars: Why computers will (necessarily) deceive us and each other. Ethics and Information Technology, 2000. 2(2): p. 113-119

    2000

  79. [87]

    Yampolskiy, R.V. and V. Govindaraju. Use of behavioral biometrics in intrusion detection and online gaming. in Biometric Technology for Human Identification III. 2006. International Society for Optics and Photonics

    2006

  80. [88]

    User authentication via behavior based passwords

    Yampolskiy, R.V. User authentication via behavior based passwords . in 2007 IEEE Long Island Systems, Applications and Technology Conference. 2007. IEEE

    2007

  81. [89]

    Yampolskiy, R.V. and J. Fox, Artificial general intelligence and the human mental model, in Singularity Hypotheses. 2012, Springer. p. 129-145

    2012

  82. [90]

    American Journal of Applied Sciences, 2008

    Yampolskiy, R.V., Behavioral modeling: an overview. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 2008. 5(5): p. 496-503

    2008

  83. [91]

    Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2018, 2018

    Slonim, N., Project Debater. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2018, 2018. 305: p. 4

    2018

  84. [92]

    Christiano, and D

    Irving, G., P. Christiano, and D. Amodei, AI safety via debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00899, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  85. [93]

    IRE Transactions on information theory, 1956

    Chomsky, N., Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on information theory, 1956. 2(3): p. 113-124

    1956

  86. [94]

    Information, 2018

    Yampolskiy, R., The Singularity May Be Near. Information, 2018. 9(8): p. 190

    2018

  87. [95]

    Blum, M. and S. Vempala, The Complexity of Human Computation: A Concrete Model with an Application to Passwords. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01204, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  88. [96]

    arXiv preprint math/0209332, 2002

    Ord, T., Hypercomputation: computing more than the Turing machine. arXiv preprint math/0209332, 2002

    2002 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Lipton, R.J. and K.W. Regan, David Johnson: Galactic Algorithms, in People, Problems, and Proofs. 2013, Springer. p. 109-112

    2013

  90. [98]

    Studia Philosophica, 1936

    Tarski, A., Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen. Studia Philosophica, 1936. 1: p. 261–405

    1936

  91. [99]

    Logic, semantics, metamathematics,

    Tarski, A., The concept of truth in formalized languages. Logic, semantics, metamathematics,

  92. [100]

    Bell system technical journal, 1948

    Shannon, C.E., A mathematical theory of communication. Bell system technical journal, 1948. 27(3): p. 379-423

    1948

  93. [101]

    Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, 2000

    Wooldridge, M., Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, 2000. 3(1): p. 9-31

    2000

  94. [102]

    Calude, and S

    Calude, C.S., E. Calude, and S. Marcus. Passages of Proof. December 2001 Workshop Truths and Proofs . in Annual Conference of the Australasian Association of Philosophy (New Zealand Division), Auckland. 2001

    2001

  95. [103]

    The Journal of Relig ion,

    Rahner, K., Thomas Aquinas on the Incomprehensibility of God. The Journal of Relig ion,

  96. [104]

    Yampolskiy, R.V. and M. Spellchecker, Artificial Intelligence Safety and Cybersecurity: a Timeline of AI Failures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.07997, 2016

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed May 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.