Philosophy-AI Partnership Pattern
Context
Technical AI research fields (interpretability, alignment, fairness) grapple with questions that have rich philosophical histories: What is an explanation? What is representation? What is deception? What is fairness? These fields often proceed without engaging that history, reinventing concepts or operating with unexamined assumptions.
Problem
Empirical work alone may be guided by unexamined assumptions about what counts as a good explanation, an appropriate level of analysis, or a valid concept. Terms get used inconsistently. Research questions may be malformed. Progress stalls on conceptual confusion rather than empirical difficulty.
Solution
Sustained, technically-informed philosophical partnership — not as afterthought or occasional citation, but as ongoing collaboration. Philosophy contributes:
- Clarifying concepts: making implicit definitions explicit, distinguishing conflated terms (vehicle vs. content, lying vs. deception)
- Scrutinizing assumptions: surfacing hidden premises (e.g., the assumption of one true decomposition)
- Proposing novel questions: connecting to prior work in adjacent domains, suggesting under-investigated distinctions
- Interpreting results: helping determine what findings actually demonstrate
- Illuminating ethics: providing normative frameworks for distinguishing problematic cases from benign ones
Consequences
Benefits:
- Accelerated progress through conceptual clarity
- Avoidance of wheel-reinvention
- Better-formed research questions
- Connection to rich existing literatures
Requirements:
- Philosophers with technical fluency and empirical engagement
- Researchers open to foundational questioning
- Recognition that complementary expertise beats symmetric expertise
Objections and responses:
| Objection | Response |
|---|---|
| ”Armchair theorizing won’t help” | Much contemporary philosophy is empirically engaged; philosophers run studies and operationalize concepts |
| ”Researchers can do it themselves” | Effective philosophical engagement requires training; philosophers bring unique tools and wider literature access |
| ”Philosophers aren’t informed enough” | Growing cohort of technically-trained philosophers; complementary expertise is the goal |
| ”We already cite philosophers” | Occasional citation ≠ systematic collaboration; selective engagement misses nuance |