REVIEW 1 cited by
On the Relation of Trust and Explainability: Why to Engineer for Trustworthiness
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
On the Relation of Trust and Explainability: Why to Engineer for Trustworthiness
read the original abstract
Recently, requirements for the explainability of software systems have gained prominence. One of the primary motivators for such requirements is that explainability is expected to facilitate stakeholders' trust in a system. Although this seems intuitively appealing, recent psychological studies indicate that explanations do not necessarily facilitate trust. Thus, explainability requirements might not be suitable for promoting trust. One way to accommodate this finding is, we suggest, to focus on trustworthiness instead of trust. While these two may come apart, we ideally want both: a trustworthy system and the stakeholder's trust. In this paper, we argue that even though trustworthiness does not automatically lead to trust, there are several reasons to engineer primarily for trustworthiness -- and that a system's explainability can crucially contribute to its trustworthiness.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Bridging the Disciplinary Gap in Explainable AI: From Abstract Desiderata to Concrete Tasks
The authors introduce a taxonomy with target, functional role, and mode of justification axes plus a framework that decomposes abstract XAI desiderata into concrete benchmarkable tasks via identified dependency structures.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.