False Sense of Security in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2405.03820
0
0
Abstract
A cautious interpretation of AI regulations and policy in the EU and the USA place explainability as a central deliverable of compliant AI systems. However, from a technical perspective, explainable AI (XAI) remains an elusive and complex target where even state of the art methods often reach erroneous, misleading, and incomplete explanations. Explainability has multiple meanings which are often used interchangeably, and there are an even greater number of XAI methods - none of which presents a clear edge. Indeed, there are multiple failure modes for each XAI method, which require application-specific development and continuous evaluation. In this paper, we analyze legislative and policy developments in the United States and the European Union, such as the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, the AI Act, the AI Liability Directive, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from a right to explanation perspective. We argue that these AI regulations and current market conditions threaten effective AI governance and safety because the objective of trustworthy, accountable, and transparent AI is intrinsically linked to the questionable ability of AI operators to provide meaningful explanations. Unless governments explicitly tackle the issue of explainability through clear legislative and policy statements that take into account technical realities, AI governance risks becoming a vacuous box-ticking exercise where scientific standards are replaced with legalistic thresholds, providing only a false sense of security in XAI.
Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:
Legislative and Policy Developments
False Sense of Security
The paper discusses how recent legislative and policy developments around explainable AI (XAI) may give users a false sense of security. While regulations like the EU's AI Act aim to increase transparency and accountability of AI systems, the authors argue that these measures may not be sufficient to address the nuances and limitations of XAI.
Plain English Explanation
Governments and policymakers have been trying to make AI systems more transparent and easier to understand through new laws and regulations. For example, the European Union's AI Act requires AI systems to provide explanations for their decisions. However, the authors of this paper suggest that these efforts may give users a false sense of security about the reliability and trustworthiness of XAI systems.
The core issue is that even with increased transparency, there are still many limitations and challenges with current XAI techniques. Explainable AI systems can still have biases, make mistakes, or provide incomplete or misleading explanations. Additionally, the level of detail in XAI explanations can sometimes reduce user agreement with the system's outputs. So while regulations may mandate explanations, users may have a false belief that these explanations are comprehensive and reliable.
Technical Explanation
The paper argues that recent legislative and policy developments around XAI, such as the EU's AI Act, may give users a misleading sense of security about the transparency and reliability of AI systems. While these regulations require AI systems to provide explanations for their decisions, the authors contend that current XAI techniques still have significant limitations.
For example, XAI systems can suffer from biases, mistakes, and incomplete or potentially misleading explanations. Furthermore, providing more detailed explanations can sometimes reduce user agreement with the system's outputs, potentially undermining trust.
The authors argue that the nuances and constraints of XAI are not fully addressed by current legislative efforts, which may give users an inaccurate perception of the trustworthiness and reliability of AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises valid concerns about the limitations of current XAI techniques and how legislative efforts may create a false sense of security around the transparency and reliability of AI systems. The authors rightly point out that even with increased explanations, XAI systems can still suffer from biases, mistakes, and incomplete or misleading outputs.
Additionally, the finding that more detailed explanations can sometimes reduce user agreement is an important consideration that policymakers should take into account. Overly complex or technical explanations may not actually increase user trust and understanding as intended.
However, the paper does not delve deeply into potential solutions or alternative approaches to address these challenges. Further research is needed to understand how to design XAI systems and regulations that can truly enhance transparency and accountability without creating a false sense of security.
Conclusion
This paper highlights a critical issue with current legislative and policy efforts around explainable AI (XAI) - the risk of creating a false sense of security among users. While regulations like the EU's AI Act aim to increase transparency, the authors argue that the limitations and nuances of XAI are not fully addressed.
Even with mandated explanations, XAI systems can still suffer from biases, mistakes, and incomplete or misleading outputs. Additionally, providing more detailed explanations does not necessarily increase user trust and agreement. These challenges suggest that policymakers need to carefully consider the practical realities and constraints of XAI when crafting regulations.
Overall, this paper serves as an important caution against complacency and over-reliance on XAI as a solution for AI transparency and accountability. Continued research and a more nuanced approach will be essential to ensure that legislative efforts around XAI truly enhance public trust in these powerful technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤖
How should AI decisions be explained? Requirements for Explanations from the Perspective of European Law
Benjamin Fresz, Elena Dubovitskaya, Danilo Brajovic, Marco Huber, Christian Horz
0
0
This paper investigates the relationship between law and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). While there is much discussion about the AI Act, for which the trilogue of the European Parliament, Council and Commission recently concluded, other areas of law seem underexplored. This paper focuses on European (and in part German) law, although with international concepts and regulations such as fiduciary plausibility checks, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and product safety and liability. Based on XAI-taxonomies, requirements for XAI-methods are derived from each of the legal bases, resulting in the conclusion that each legal basis requires different XAI properties and that the current state of the art does not fulfill these to full satisfaction, especially regarding the correctness (sometimes called fidelity) and confidence estimates of XAI-methods.
4/22/2024
🔍
Distance-Restricted Explanations: Theoretical Underpinnings & Efficient Implementation
Yacine Izza, Xuanxiang Huang, Antonio Morgado, Jordi Planes, Alexey Ignatiev, Joao Marques-Silva
0
0
The uses of machine learning (ML) have snowballed in recent years. In many cases, ML models are highly complex, and their operation is beyond the understanding of human decision-makers. Nevertheless, some uses of ML models involve high-stakes and safety-critical applications. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to help human decision-makers in understanding the operation of such complex ML models, thus eliciting trust in their operation. Unfortunately, the majority of past XAI work is based on informal approaches, that offer no guarantees of rigor. Unsurprisingly, there exists comprehensive experimental and theoretical evidence confirming that informal methods of XAI can provide human-decision makers with erroneous information. Logic-based XAI represents a rigorous approach to explainability; it is model-based and offers the strongest guarantees of rigor of computed explanations. However, a well-known drawback of logic-based XAI is the complexity of logic reasoning, especially for highly complex ML models. Recent work proposed distance-restricted explanations, i.e. explanations that are rigorous provided the distance to a given input is small enough. Distance-restricted explainability is tightly related with adversarial robustness, and it has been shown to scale for moderately complex ML models, but the number of inputs still represents a key limiting factor. This paper investigates novel algorithms for scaling up the performance of logic-based explainers when computing and enumerating ML model explanations with a large number of inputs.
5/15/2024
🤖
Explainable Generative AI (GenXAI): A Survey, Conceptualization, and Research Agenda
Johannes Schneider
0
0
Generative AI (GenAI) marked a shift from AI being able to recognize to AI being able to generate solutions for a wide variety of tasks. As the generated solutions and applications become increasingly more complex and multi-faceted, novel needs, objectives, and possibilities have emerged for explainability (XAI). In this work, we elaborate on why XAI has gained importance with the rise of GenAI and its challenges for explainability research. We also unveil novel and emerging desiderata that explanations should fulfill, covering aspects such as verifiability, interactivity, security, and cost. To this end, we focus on surveying existing works. Furthermore, we provide a taxonomy of relevant dimensions that allows us to better characterize existing XAI mechanisms and methods for GenAI. We discuss different avenues to ensure XAI, from training data to prompting. Our paper offers a short but concise technical background of GenAI for non-technical readers, focusing on text and images to better understand novel or adapted XAI techniques for GenAI. However, due to the vast array of works on GenAI, we decided to forego detailed aspects of XAI related to evaluation and usage of explanations. As such, the manuscript interests both technically oriented people and other disciplines, such as social scientists and information systems researchers. Our research roadmap provides more than ten directions for future investigation.
4/16/2024
📈
Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Overview and Field Guide for Future Research Directions
Shahin Atakishiyev, Mohammad Salameh, Hengshuai Yao, Randy Goebel
0
0
Autonomous driving has achieved significant milestones in research and development over the last two decades. There is increasing interest in the field as the deployment of autonomous vehicles (AVs) promises safer and more ecologically friendly transportation systems. With the rapid progress in computationally powerful artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, AVs can sense their environment with high precision, make safe real-time decisions, and operate reliably without human intervention. However, intelligent decision-making in such vehicles is not generally understandable by humans in the current state of the art, and such deficiency hinders this technology from being socially acceptable. Hence, aside from making safe real-time decisions, AVs must also explain their AI-guided decision-making process in order to be regulatory compliant across many jurisdictions. Our study sheds comprehensive light on the development of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) approaches for AVs. In particular, we make the following contributions. First, we provide a thorough overview of the state-of-the-art and emerging approaches for XAI-based autonomous driving. We then propose a conceptual framework that considers the essential elements for explainable end-to-end autonomous driving. Finally, we present XAI-based prospective directions and emerging paradigms for future directions that hold promise for enhancing transparency, trustworthiness, and societal acceptance of AVs.
4/29/2024