REVIEW 3 cited by
Explainable AI is Dead, Long Live Explainable AI! Hypothesis-driven decision support
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Explainable AI is Dead, Long Live Explainable AI! Hypothesis-driven decision support
read the original abstract
In this paper, we argue for a paradigm shift from the current model of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), which may be counter-productive to better human decision making. In early decision support systems, we assumed that we could give people recommendations and that they would consider them, and then follow them when required. However, research found that people often ignore recommendations because they do not trust them; or perhaps even worse, people follow them blindly, even when the recommendations are wrong. Explainable artificial intelligence mitigates this by helping people to understand how and why models give certain recommendations. However, recent research shows that people do not always engage with explainability tools enough to help improve decision making. The assumption that people will engage with recommendations and explanations has proven to be unfounded. We argue this is because we have failed to account for two things. First, recommendations (and their explanations) take control from human decision makers, limiting their agency. Second, giving recommendations and explanations does not align with the cognitive processes employed by people making decisions. This position paper proposes a new conceptual framework called Evaluative AI for explainable decision support. This is a machine-in-the-loop paradigm in which decision support tools provide evidence for and against decisions made by people, rather than provide recommendations to accept or reject. We argue that this mitigates issues of over- and under-reliance on decision support tools, and better leverages human expertise in decision making.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Medical Model Synthesis Architectures: A Case Study
MedMSA framework retrieves knowledge via language models then builds formal probabilistic models to produce uncertainty-weighted differential diagnoses from symptoms.
-
Beyond Explainable AI (XAI): An Overdue Paradigm Shift and Post-XAI Research Directions
Current XAI methods for DNNs and LLMs rest on paradoxes and false assumptions that demand a paradigm shift to verification protocols, scientific foundations, context-aware design, and faithful model analysis rather th...
-
Beyond Explainable AI (XAI): An Overdue Paradigm Shift and Post-XAI Research Directions
A position paper argues that post-hoc XAI explanations are unfaithful and paradoxical, proposing a shift to expert-based verification and certification of AI systems.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.