Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a Brouwer-inspired assertibility constraint for responsible AI, particularly in high-stakes domains, requiring systems to provide publicly inspectable certificates of entitlement before asserting or denying claims. This constraint results in a three-status interface (Asserted, Denied, Undetermined) that separates internal entitlement from public standing, connected by a certificate. The approach is operationalized through decision-layer gating of threshold and argmax outputs, using internal witnesses and an output contract with reason-coded abstentions.
Generative AI's authoritative pronouncements threaten democratic epistemic agency, but a "Undetermined" output status enforced by challengeable warrants can push back.
Generative AI can convert uncertainty into authoritative-seeming verdicts, displacing the justificatory work on which democratic epistemic agency depends. As a corrective, I propose a Brouwer-inspired assertibility constraint for responsible AI: in high-stakes domains, systems may assert or deny claims only if they can provide a publicly inspectable and contestable certificate of entitlement; otherwise they must return"Undetermined". This constraint yields a three-status interface semantics (Asserted, Denied, Undetermined) that cleanly separates internal entitlement from public standing while connecting them via the certificate as a boundary object. It also produces a time-indexed entitlement profile that is stable under numerical refinement yet revisable as the public record changes. I operationalize the constraint through decision-layer gating of threshold and argmax outputs, using internal witnesses (e.g., sound bounds or separation margins) and an output contract with reason-coded abstentions. A design lemma shows that any total, certificate-sound binary interface already decides the deployed predicate on its declared scope, so"Undetermined"is not a tunable reject option but a mandatory status whenever no forcing witness is available. By making outputs answerable to challengeable warrants rather than confidence alone, the paper aims to preserve epistemic agency where automated speech enters public justification.
