The Conflict Between Explainable and Accountable Decision-Making Algorithms

Abstract

Decision-making algorithms are being used in important decisions, such as who should be enrolled in health care programs and be hired. Even though these systems are currently deployed in high-stakes scenarios, many of them cannot explain their decisions. This limitation has prompted the Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) initiative, which aims to make algorithms explainable to comply with legal requirements, promote trust, and maintain accountability. This paper questions whether and to what extent explainability can help solve the responsibility issues posed by autonomous AI systems. We suggest that XAI systems that provide post-hoc explanations could be seen as blameworthy agents, obscuring the responsibility of developers in the decision-making process. Furthermore, we argue that XAI could result in incorrect attributions of responsibility to vulnerable stakeholders, such as those who are subjected to algorithmic decisions (i.e., patients), due to a misguided perception that they have control over explainable algorithms. This conflict between explainability and accountability can be exacerbated if designers choose to use algorithms and patients as moral and legal scapegoats. We conclude with a set of recommendations for how to approach this tension in the socio-technical process of algorithmic decision-making and a defense of hard regulation to prevent designers from escaping responsibility.

arXiv commentTo appear in the FAccT 2022 proceedings

References in corpus (13)

• Artificial Intelligence: the global landscape of ethics guidelines
• European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"
• Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
• To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making
• Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act
• Explaining Explanations in AI
• What Do We Want From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -- A Stakeholder Perspective on XAI and a Conceptual Model Guiding Interdisciplinary XAI Research
• Actionable Recourse in Linear Classification
• The Hidden Assumptions Behind Counterfactual Explanations and Principal Reasons
• Towards Realistic Individual Recourse and Actionable Explanations in Black-Box Decision Making Systems
• Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making
• The Conflict Between People's Urge to Punish AI and Legal Systems
• Reviewable Automated Decision-Making: A Framework for Accountable Algorithmic Systems

Cited by in corpus (4)

• Blaming Humans and Machines: What Shapes People's Reactions to Algorithmic Harm
• Are Explanations Helpful? A Comparative Analysis of Explainability Methods in Skin Lesion Classifiers
• Being Accountable is Smart: Navigating the Technical and Regulatory Landscape of AI-based Services for Power Grid
• Can AI Model the Complexities of Human Moral Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Kidney Allocation Decisions