I recently came accross an infleuncer account on instagram where the creator was interviewing someone from Oxford All Saints, which apparently had one of the worlds hardest entrance exams, of which one of the questions was - does it matter what a judge eats for breakfast?
I'm not sure who the responder was, something i plan on following up on, but i wanted to jot down my thoughts before i forget.
the respondant answered that first he deconstructed the question -Â
the judge makes big important, moral and legal decisions
then, the question is about how moral and legal decisions are affected by breakfast
from here he looks for an example where this might be stressed, what are the moral implications of food, and he posed the question -
can a judge who loves to eat meat (i'm paraphrasing) make a fair and balanced judgement on a animal rights case?
this just blew my mind, since my brain, just like the creator, a lawyer, went to the biological impacts of a heavy breakfast, and how that might hasten judgements before lunch for example.
i was curious, since figuring out how to differniate human from AI in terms of writing/ intelligence, has been an area that recently interested me. so i posed the same question, does it matter what a judge eats for breakfast?
the answers were remarkably consistent around a biological response affecting cognitive ability to make clear decisions.
I don't have a clear answer, and this was a simple test over gpt, gemini, deepseek, but i'm guessing that the lesson for us, is that this unconventional, lateral thinking that allows you to connect morality to food and judgement is where the human brain can beat AI.
at a laymans guess, AI is based on pattern, pattern by nature is the most common peak of a bellcurve, hence its response will be the most common response. meaning exceptional and unconventional 'links' are not going to derive from AI, but, this is really where a human brain can truly excel and show its potential.