Can intelligent machines think well on our behalf?

Determine whether intelligent machines can adequately "think well" on behalf of humans in crucial decisions, or whether essential elements of human deliberation—specifically doubt, empathy, and practical wisdom—are irreducibly beyond algorithmic systems and thus cannot be replicated by artificial intelligence.

Background

In the ethical framing of AI’s role in decision-making, the text highlights a core dilemma drawn from Michael Sandel’s work: whether machine-based reasoning can genuinely substitute for the nuanced, value-laden processes of human judgment. This is presented as a live uncertainty tied directly to AI’s societal deployment in consequential domains.

The authors explicitly mark this as an unresolved issue in 2025, framing it as a fundamental question about the limits of algorithmic decision-making relative to human faculties such as doubt, empathy, and practical wisdom.

References

The latter point, highlighted by philosopher Michael Sandel, directly concerns the impact on thought: can intelligent machines "think well" on our behalf, or are there elements of human deliberation---doubt, empathy, practical wisdom---that no algorithm will ever be able to replace ? In 2025, this question remains open.

— The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Human Thought  (2508.16628 - Gesnot, 15 Aug 2025) in General Introduction, Generative AI, Artificial Consciousness, and Ethical Considerations

However, it is unknown whether these tools could fully substitute for human expert data scientists in healthcare databases, which are notoriously complex and heterogeneous.

— "I Know Where to Look," But Does the LLM? Charting the Gaps Between Clinical Expert Needs and Unstructured Data Abstraction Tools  (2609.19318 - Sivaraman et al., 16 Sep 2026) in Section 6.2, “Future Design Directions,” subsection “Reviewing Data,” item D1 (“Agentic cohort selection”)