Open-textured terms in written rules are typically settled through interpretive argumentation. Ongoing work has attempted to catalogue the schemes used in such interpretive argumentation. But how can the use of these schemes affect the way in which people actually use and reason over the proper interpretations of open-textured terms? Using the interpretive argument-eliciting game Aporia as our framework, we carried out an empirical study to answer this question. Differing from previous work, we did not allow participants to argue for interpretations arbitrarily, but to only use arguments that fit with a given set of interpretive argument templates. Finally, we analyze the results captured by this new dataset, specifically focusing on practical implications for the development of interpretation-capable artificial reasoners.

Can artificially intelligent systems follow rules? The answer might seem an obvious `yes', in the sense that all (current) AI strictly acts in accordance with programming code constructed from highly formalized and well-defined rulesets. But here I refer to the kinds of rules expressed in human language that are the basis of laws, regulations, codes of conduct, ethical guidelines, and so on. The ability to follow such rules, and to reason about them, is not nearly as clear-cut as it seems on first analysis. Real-world rules are unavoidably rife with open-textured terms, which imbue rules with a possibly infinite set of possible interpretations. Narrowing down this set requires a complex reasoning process that is not yet within the scope of contemporary AI. This poses a serious problem for autonomous AI: If one cannot reason about open-textured terms, then one cannot reason about (or in accordance with) real-world rules. And if one cannot reason about real-world rules, then one cannot: follow human laws, comply with regulations, act in accordance with written agreements, or even obey mission-specific commands that are anything more than trivial. But before tackling these problems, we must first answer a more fundamental question: Given an open-textured rule, what is its correct interpretation? Or more precisely: How should our artificially intelligent systems determine which interpretation to consider correct? In this essay, I defend the following answer: Rule-following AI should act in accordance with the interpretation best supported by minimally defeasible interpretive arguments (MDIA).

Artificially intelligent systems, given a set of non-trivial ethical rules to follow, will inevitably be faced with scenarios which call into question the scope of those rules. In such cases, human reasoners typically will engage in interpretive reasoning, where interpretive arguments are used to support or attack claims that some rule should be understood a certain way. Artificially intelligent reasoners, however, currently lack the ability to carry out human-like interpretive reasoning, and we argue that bridging this gulf is of tremendous importance to human-centered AI. In order to better understand how future artificial reasoners capable of human-like interpretive reasoning must be developed, we have collected a dataset of ethical rules, scenarios designed to invoke interpretive reasoning, and interpretations of those scenarios. We perform a qualitative analysis of our dataset, and summarize our findings in the form of practical recommendations.