Automatic coherence-driven inference on arguments

CDI also offers a plausible approach for automatically making sense of competing arguments in a way that accords with the features enumerated here. This paper is part of an argument that it is now feasible to computationally instantiate a reasonable approximation of a coherence theory of truth [64]: the recent benchmark [12] provides additional quantitative evidence in this direction. By "hard-coding" acceptance of conclusively established propositions, this theory can furthermore be anchored in a correspondence theory of truth [65]. In other words, coherence computations can be required to incorporate privileged information that also coheres with observed reality. While it is easy to imagine attempts to try the same thing with privileged information that does not cohere with observed reality, lies cannot persist when they can easily be unraveled. Even with flawless technology (which this will not be), obstacles will be manifold. For example, in a pluralistic society, legal coherence may actually require sacrificing fairness in some ways [66]. Ultimately, people must decide matters for themselves. It is only reasonable to hope that technology can serve as a reliable tool to help people make their decisions more coherent.