pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 1810.00184 · v1 · pith:N5X2MPEMnew · submitted 2018-09-29 · 💻 cs.AI

Stakeholders in Explainable AI

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords communitiesconsensusexplainablethereconcernsgeneralinterpretablestakeholder
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

There is general consensus that it is important for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning systems to be explainable and/or interpretable. However, there is no general consensus over what is meant by 'explainable' and 'interpretable'. In this paper, we argue that this lack of consensus is due to there being several distinct stakeholder communities. We note that, while the concerns of the individual communities are broadly compatible, they are not identical, which gives rise to different intents and requirements for explainability/interpretability. We use the software engineering distinction between validation and verification, and the epistemological distinctions between knowns/unknowns, to tease apart the concerns of the stakeholder communities and highlight the areas where their foci overlap or diverge. It is not the purpose of the authors of this paper to 'take sides' - we count ourselves as members, to varying degrees, of multiple communities - but rather to help disambiguate what stakeholders mean when they ask 'Why?' of an AI.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Interpretability from the Ground Up: Stakeholder-Centric Design of Automated Scoring in Educational Assessments

    cs.CL 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AnalyticScore applies new FGTI interpretability principles to text-based scoring and achieves accuracy within 0.06 QWK of uninterpretable state-of-the-art while matching human featurization on the ASAP-SAS dataset.