Exploring the intersection of Philosophy, Ethics, and GenAI: insights through the Two-door riddle Let’s dive into how the two-doors riddle can help us

Let’s dive into how the two-doors riddle can help us better understand the limitations of GenAI, human-GenAI collaboration and the philosophical and ethical questions they raise.

The classic two men and two doors riddle

Imagine you’re standing in front of two doors, one leading to safety and the other to danger. In front of each door stands a man, one always tells the truth and the other always lies. You can ask only one question to one of the men to figure out which door to choose.

What question do you ask?

Answer

Ask either man:

“If I were to ask the other man which door leads to safety, which door would he point me to?”

Then, take the opposite door.

Why this works:

·?????? If you ask the truth-teller, he knows that the liar would point to the dangerous door, so he will truthfully tell you the wrong door.

·?????? If you ask the liar, he knows the truth-teller would point to the safe door, but since he always lies, he will point to the wrong door.

In both cases, the answer you receive will be the dangerous door. Simply choose the opposite one, and you’ll be safe!

1.???? Intent vs. Limitation: rethinking “Truth”

In the riddle, the liar actively chooses to deceive, while GenAI’s “errors” arise from systemic issues like data gaps, biases or outdated training. This difference is key:

·?????? Trust ≠ Blind Faith: We distrust the liar because of their intent. With GenAI, we question outputs because of inherent limitations in design and data.

·?????? Accountability: The riddle’s liar is morally responsible for their actions, but GenAI’s “mistakes” stem from human choices in data selection and model training.

Takeaway: GenAI’s “truth” is based on probabilities, not intent. It’s more like a weather forecast, useful but subject to error.

2.???? The epistemology of asking: beyond just “Right answers”

The riddle forces us to think about how to craft questions that account for the responder’s nature. With GenAI, we need a similar approach:

·?????? Meta-Prompts: Ask GenAI to explain its reasoning or flag uncertainties (“Are there conflicting viewpoints on this?”).

·?????? Context anchoring: Like the riddle’s “other guard” trick, set clear boundaries in prompts (e.g., “Use only peer-reviewed sources” or “Assume I’m a novice”).

Example:

·?????? Weak Prompt: “What’s the best diet?” → Likely to get a biased or oversimplified answer.

·?????? Strong Prompt: “Summarize 2023 meta-analyses on Mediterranean vs. Keto diets, noting sample sizes and conflicts of interest.”

3.???? The bias paradox: reflections and distortions

Both the liar and GenAI reflect systems of influence:

·?????? The Liar: Represents deliberate misinformation (like online bad actors).

·?????? GenAI: Amplifies unintentional biases (e.g., underrepresenting non-Western perspectives in training data).

Critical insight: the riddle’s solution neutralizes bias through logic, while GenAI requires us to actively address bias by:

·?????? Seeking diverse sources.

·?????? Using tools like “adversarial prompting” (“Argue against the answer you just gave”).

?

4.???? Ethical design: crafting “Truth-Teller” systems

The riddle’s guards operate in a closed system with clear rules. For GenAI, we need:

·?????? Transparency by Default: Disclose cutoff dates, data sources and confidence levels (similar to a nutrition label for AI outputs).

·?????? Fail-Safes: Just as the riddle’s answer flips the guards’ responses, GenAI systems should auto-flag potential hallucinations (e.g., “This answer relies on data before 2021” or “This claim is disputed”).

?

5.???? The Future: when GenAI can “lie”

What if GenAI agents begin to act with intent (e.g., in negotiations or adversarial settings)? Suddenly, the stakes in the riddle seem more real. To prepare for this:

·?????? Detection Literacy: Teach users to spot manipulative patterns (e.g., overly confident claims, selective omissions).

·?????? Regulatory Guardrails: Treat AI like the riddle’s doors—require systems to disclose their “purpose” (e.g., “I’m a sales bot optimized for conversions”).

Final Thought Experiment:

If the two-doors riddle’s liar were replaced by GenAI, would you trust it more or less than the human liar? Why?

The answer comes down to whether we value transparency of process (GenAI’s explainable errors) over transparency of intent (the liar’s known malice). Both require critical thinking, but in different ways.