Skip to content

← All Q&A

Why does Lutz compare requiring AI explainability to regulating cars not to scare horses?

Policy & EthicsRisks

Drawn from Lutz Finger's Forbes column, LinkedIn writing, and Cornell teaching. Sources are cited inline so you can read the originals.

Some regulatory demands are technically impossible and counterproductive.

Large language models rely on probability distributions and they tend toward the statistical middle, making it difficult to explain AI’s reasoning. Asking for explainability is like asking cars not to scare horses, which was once a real regulatory demand. If regulations require the impossible, we risk stifling AI development. Regulation should focus on what is feasible rather than demanding something the technology fundamentally cannot provide. This is part of why we are over-regulating.

Emmanuel Macron On AI: We Are Regulating Ourselves Out Of The Market · Forbes


Have a follow-up? hello@lutzfinger.com. Or pick another question: all Q&A →