Investigator's Intuition: Conditions of Formation and the Possibility of Implementation of Artificial Intelligence

Tsvetkova Anna Denisovna ORCID: 0000-0002-1631-9265 Student of the Institute of Justice, Ural State Law University named after V. F. Yakovlev 620034, Russia, Sverdlovskaya oblast', g. Ekaterinburg, ul. Kolmogorova, 54 at@crimlib.info Other publications by this author

The topic of the investigator's intuition and its role in the detection and investigation of crimes has already been widely studied. At the same time, a meaningful conversation on this issue is possible only if we distract ourselves from the ordinary idea of intuition as a mysterious ability ^{[1, p. 120]}, some kind of "inner voice" that appeared from nowhere without prerequisites for that, and, along with everyone who has researched this issue, we will talk about intuition in its scientific understanding, when it is expressed as direct knowledge obtained on the basis of processing previously accumulated experience, bypassing the complex stages of the rational decision-making process ^{[2, p. 82]}. A striking example of this phenomenon is the insight that descended on Mendeleev, who at first worked for a very long time on the systematization of chemical elements, as a result of which, according to legend, he dreamed of a well-known table.

In investigative activity, such intuition takes place, and its role is great. It allows you to make decisions in situations of insufficient or, on the contrary, a very large amount of available information. To solve the task that the investigator faces, previously acquired knowledge (in the process of training, work), life experience, the experience of colleagues, perhaps even information gleaned from works of fiction (films, books) are unconsciously connected ^{[2, pp. 82, 83]}; superimposed on the factual base of the version, they allow to overcome uncertainty, shortage or overabundance information by setting up the versioning process.

At the same time, A. R. Ratinov, who was one of the first to touch upon the problem of investigative intuition, defined it as the ability to solve investigative tasks only with limited available information ^{[3, p. 239]}. However, further developments of this topic allowed us to establish the considerable role of the category in question with an overabundance of input data, when an investigator finds himself in a situation of a "combinatorial explosion", and his cognitive abilities are not enough to structure and organize the entire array of information that he has. In this case, intuition, which is deeper and does not spend resources for a consistent explanation of the conclusions, gives a signal ^{[4, p. 196]}, indicating the correct alternative for multiple choice or the priority direction of further investigation.

I would like to give another example confirming the importance of intuition, this time from the field of criminology: at the dawn of science, when technology and tactics were just beginning to take shape as an independent branch of knowledge, and the methodology did not exist at all, Hans Gross was invited to the place of death of an elderly sick person – he committed suicide. The father of criminology, having come to the apartment of the hangman, sketched the situation until the police and doctors changed nothing. Returning to his room, Mr. Gross began to study the drawing, and at that moment it dawned on him – there was no stool under the corpse, without which the deceased could not have climbed into the loop in any way. There were no logical reflections before the conclusion, the scientist's intuition mechanism worked, pointing out a negative circumstance. From this example, typical signs of an intuitive decision, highlighted by G. A. Zorin ^{[5, pp. 194-195]}, are also visible: surprise, inner confidence in the subject who accepted it, grace and harmony, regressive rationalization.

However, it would be wrong to absolutize the meaning of investigative intuition – it is not always necessary to turn to this mechanism: algorithmized logical investigation methods are quite suitable for solving typical investigative situations ^{[6, pp. 31-32],[7, 34]}, problematic ones are overcome by heuristic (versioned) mechanisms ^{[6, p. 34],[2, p. 50]}, the need for intuition arises in the case of dead-end investigative situations when previous thinking tools did not lead to a result ^{[2, pp. 86-87]}.

It should be noted that the appearance of intuition is most likely in an investigator with an average level of professional knowledge, skills and abilities: a very young and inexperienced person has nowhere to draw background knowledge, multivariate models of possible reality have not yet been accumulated ^{[8, pp. 8-9]}; while an over-experienced investigator quickly and correctly performs all the necessary conscious operations. The nature of intuition is such that it generates a new guess or sows a grain of doubt about the correctness of the perception of surrounding events due to the background work of our brain, which occurs so quickly that a person is unable to track the moment of origin and the course of thought, but can only perceive the result. We believe that such an average level is optimal, because during retraining, the eye becomes "blurred", the investigator becomes unable to look widely, his self–confidence in his own abilities carries no less risk of error than the timidity and indecision of a very young specialist.

In addition, to a greater extent, intuition is manifested in investigators who are characterized by a high level of reflection ^{[9, p. 109]}, a strong system of principles, a developed sense of justice and a sense of justice ^{[10, p. 109]}. It seems that this is due to the fact that such people are more sensitive, feel others better, tend to trust their emotions and are more focused on achieving the truth, rather than simply closing the case.

From a psychological point of view, it should be noted that not every person is able to catch the signals of intuition and listen to them ^{[8, p. 12]}. In the modern era, when the achievements of scientific and technological progress are incredibly high, people tend to rationalize everything more than ever before, to subject everything to logical and precise justification, therefore, even though the development of scientific thought at the present stage has proved the existence of a huge layer of human brain activity mechanisms originating in areas beyond consciousness, and inaccessible to human understanding yet, people are afraid and do not trust what they cannot explain – xenophobia towards intuition is manifested. This is fraught with negative consequences, since the latter is a fully recognized component of the successful resolution of the case among the scientific community and an important element of the investigation in practice.

Let us consider the following situation as an example confirming this thesis. On February 22, 2015, in Nizhny Tagil, while extinguishing a fire in a residential building, the corpses of three men were found: the death of two of them occurred as a result of multiple blunt force blows, and the death of the third from carbon monoxide poisoning, the investigation reached a dead end, but 9 days later, a minor K. turned to the police, who said that he had killed two men and set fire to the house, confirming the information during the verification of the testimony on the spot. However, the investigator's intuition gave a signal that something was wrong here, and K. was sent to a psychological and physiological study, as a result of which it was possible to establish the fact of self-incrimination to ^{[11, pp. 162-163]}. Thus, the investigative intuition allowed to establish the truth in the case and avoid punishment of the innocent.

At the same time, the above example shows another important property of investigative intuition – it cannot form the basis of the evidence base as an independent component of it ^{[4, p. 195],[2, p. 83]}. This is quite reasonable, since intuitive knowledge in itself is not available for verification by another person, it is an internal, individual perception of the situation, and the evaluation of evidence in terms of their reliability, relevance, admissibility and sufficiency is carried out by the court – an external subject. Therefore, the greatest thing that the investigator's intuition is capable of is to tell him the direction of further search in order to confirm intuitive knowledge: in the example described above, a psychophysiological examination of the suspect using a polygraph was conducted for this purpose.

Developing the topic of the properties of investigative intuition, it is necessary to indicate that it is a purely individual knowledge, even if it is based on the experience of colleagues, relatives, heroes of works of art – after all, only the investigator himself in a particular situation, due to his theoretical and factual knowledge, cognitive abilities, professional flair, etc., evaluates a problematic investigative situation ^{[4, p. 196]}. The result of such an assessment depends, firstly, on all the features listed above, and secondly, on the degree of development of the investigator's ability to listen to his intuition and correctly interpret its signals. As a result, one person can pay attention to individual facts and interpret them as something that causes doubt, and the other will not do it in the same situation, which is why everyone will come to their own solution of a specific problem (it seems that the first one is more correct, since it will consider a larger number of versions, increasing the quality and reliability of the confirmed).

In this regard, the question of methods of intuition training becomes important. On the relevant issue, there are quite a few online simulators and paid author's courses on the Internet, but the scientific nature of most of them raises serious doubts. In our opinion, the most important "exercise" is a multilateral study of the world – for the effective work of intuition, as has been pointed out more than once in the work, a broad erudition is necessary, which forms the basis of subjective experience. Future and current investigators should be interested in everything, read a lot, and not only criminal cases and narrow-profile legal literature.

Further, since intuition is best manifested when both hemispheres work together, they need to be developed – to perform habitual actions with a non-working hand, to solve non-standard tasks (for example, in mathematics, physics), to engage in hobbies unrelated to the profession (for example, drawing or wood carving). It is valuable to perform non-standard tasks, participate in Olympiads ^{[12, p. 274]}. This will improve cognitive abilities and increase the susceptibility of neurons.

Now let's look at what can teach intuition to hear. Firstly, these are computer and (or) desktop games, in which it is necessary to make a quick decision, predict possible actions of the enemy. So, the player, striving to improve his own performance, will accelerate the pace of decision-making, for which this process will have to be translated into a concise, intuitive form. As a result, a person will be able to train his flair and attention to intuitive signals in a safe gaming space.

Secondly, the "listen to yourself" technique turns out to be useful, when a person analyzes his condition and reacts to internal itching, tingling in the fingertips, etc. – everyone has a special feeling. The exact nature of its origin has not yet been studied, but in practice intuitive signals in the form of somatic sensations have been confirmed, so it is impossible to completely ignore them, including in scientific research. The investigator must determine how intuition "communicates" with him, and each time listen to the corresponding sensation, or immediately accepting in such cases the hints of inner intuition, or increasing his own caution and attentiveness, strengthening conscious control and analysis of what is happening, as well as rechecking the facts to which intuition reacted. It seems that the above is the necessary minimum for mastering your own intuition.

Finally, we point out that at the present stage, instead of intuition, artificial intelligence can help the investigator, which, operating with a large amount of data, successfully overcomes situations of "combinatorial explosion" ^{[13, p. 111]}, noticing details that the human brain is not able to catch and process even sometimes with well-developed intuition. This importance of artificial neural networks allows some of the greatest scientists (L. Ya. Drapkin ^{[2, p. 83]}, M. G. Drorer ^{[14, p. 69]}, etc.) to talk about the intuitive nature of their functioning. And indeed, parallels are found: as a person with an elusive speed for his own consciousness runs through the amount of knowledge and accumulated experience available to him when activating intuition, so artificial intelligence quickly sorts through all the information stored in the database before issuing the result.

However, the latter is not yet able to cover all situations where it is necessary to use intuition. So, in order to make a decision in conditions of a minimum amount of information, the investigator turns to the third-party experience available to him and absent from artificial intelligence systems. One could assume that this problem is surmountable – just at the stage of training an artificial neural network, it requires uploading materials of all criminal cases that deserve the attention of art detectives, as well as basic ideas about the world (knowledge of physics, mathematics, linguistics, etc.). However, this seems to be something fantastic, because a) this database will have to be collected by a person (a group of scientists) who, due to natural limitations, will not be able to find and download everything; b) this will lead to retraining of the artificial intelligence system, because of which he will be mistaken ^{[15, p. 75]}; c) only a strong artificial intelligence can possess such a range of knowledge, which programmatically and structurally differs from the weak one that currently exists – specializing in one direction ^{[15, p. 69]} – and cannot be created using modern technologies (their level of development is still insufficient).

Despite the fact that a person often does not understand how an artificial neural network generates a result ^{[16, p. 97]}, we believe that it is unreasonable to call its activity intuitive – not everything that is hidden from the human mind is intuition, the presence of such black spots indicates only the insufficiency of our own knowledge – how magic the solution seems to a small child his older brother is trigonometric equations. Intuition is the result of going beyond the boundaries of algorithmic cognition ^{[17, p. 37]}, an elusive perception and consideration of third-party facts that do not fit into the standard picture: for example, G. Gross drew attention to the absence of a stool under the gallows, and the investigator investigating the death of three men suspected that the teenager was cheating, admitting his guilt in the murder. In turn, artificial intelligence systems at the present stage of their development are still unable to go beyond the scope of the field in which they are trained and trained ^{[18, pp. 32-33]}, which excludes the possibility of taking into account a wide range of diverse facts. Therefore, we can conclude that today it is intuition that is one of those factors that make it impossible to replace the investigator with artificial intelligence. At the same time, it seems that the best results in the investigation and disclosure of crimes can be achieved if we combine the efforts of a person who, without realizing it, can notice the elusive circumstances that generate intuition, and a machine that, albeit narrowly, but very deeply, operates in detail in areas inaccessible to the human mind.

Summarizing, we point out that investigative intuition is an important tool that should be used in the investigation of criminal cases. The investigator needs to train his intuition through the development of comprehensive erudition. However, it is equally important to form the ability to hear intuition prompts, not to ignore them, because the lives of other people may depend on it, as was shown in the examples.