What is it about?
Imagine a doctor who gives the right diagnosis but can’t tell you why. Would you trust her? Many people feel the same about today’s powerful AI systems: they seem to “decide” without showing their work. In this article I argue that we are asking the wrong question. Instead of demanding to see every line of code, we should ask whether an AI can play the “game of giving and asking for reasons”—the everyday practice of backing up claims with good arguments. If a chatbot, legal assistant or medical AI can justify its answers in ways humans can follow and critique, then it earns a place in the “space of reasons” alongside us. That shift in focus keeps the benefits of powerful AI while still holding it accountable.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
The debate over “explainable AI” is usually framed as a technical problem: make the black box transparent. My paper is the first to tackle the issue from a pragmatist-philosophical angle, showing that transparency is not about peeking inside the box but about whether the AI can give convincing public reasons. As courts, regulators and hospitals race to set rules for AI, this reframing offers a practical middle path between blind trust and impossible full disclosure.
Perspectives
Writing this piece was a genuine pleasure. Weekly discussions with colleagues at Bocconi University—especially during our informal reading group on AI ethics—sharpened every argument and saved me from more than one dead end. Their probing questions turned vague intuitions into the clear positions you see here.
Leonardo Marchettoni
Universita degli Studi di Parma
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: There Are No Aliens in the Space of Reasons, Philosophy & Technology, July 2025, Springer Science + Business Media,
DOI: 10.1007/s13347-025-00917-1.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
