There is an underappreciated respect in which the widespread availability of generative artificial intelligence (AI) models poses a threat to human connection. My central contention is that human creativity is especially capable of helping us connect to others in a valuable way, but the widespread availability of generative AI models reduces our incentives to engage in various sorts of creative work in the arts and sciences. I argue that creative endeavors must be motivated by curiosity, and so they must disclose (...) the creative agent’s inquisitive self. It is through self-disclosure, including the disclosure of the inquisitive self, that we put ourselves in a position to be seen by and connect with others through our creative pursuits. Because relying on AI for certain generative tasks is less self-disclosive than the creative work such technologies supplant, this reliance threatens to weaken our connections to one another. (shrink)

Algorithmic risk assessment tools, such as COMPAS, are increasingly used in criminal justice systems to predict the risk of defendants to reoffend in the future. This paper argues that these tools may not only predict recidivism, but may themselves causally induce recidivism through self-fulfilling predictions. We argue that such “performative” effects can yield severe harms both to individuals and to society at large, which raise epistemic-ethical responsibilities on the part of developers and users of risk assessment tools. To meet these (...) responsibilities, we present a novel desideratum on algorithmic tools, called explainability-in-context, which requires clarifying how these tools causally interact with the social, technological, and institutional environments they are embedded in. Risk assessment practices are thus subject to high epistemic standards, which haven't been sufficiently appreciated to date. Explainability-in-context, we contend, is a crucial goal to pursue in addressing the ethical challenges surrounding risk assessment tools. (shrink)

Recent work in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) attempts to render opaque AI systems understandable through a divide-and-conquer strategy. However, this fails to illuminate how trained AI systems work as a whole. Precisely this kind of functional understanding is needed, though, to satisfy important societal desiderata such as safety. To remedy this situation, we argue, AI researchers should seek mechanistic interpretability, viz. apply coordinated discovery strategies familiar from the life sciences to uncover the functional organisation of complex AI systems. Additionally, theorists (...) should accommodate for the unique costs and benefits of such strategies in their portrayals of XAI research. (shrink)

As opaque algorithmic systems take up a larger and larger role in shaping our lives, calls for explainability in various algorithmic systems have increased. Many moral and political philosophers have sought to vindicate these calls for explainability by developing theories on which decision-subjects—that is, individuals affected by decisions—have a moral right to the explanation of the systems that affect them. Existing theories tend to suggest that the right to explanation arises solely in virtue of facts about how decision-subjects are affected (...) by opaque systems. But this ignores an important part of the normative landscape: sometimes, facts about a decision-maker’s rights and freedoms can make a difference to whether she owes anyone explanations of her decisions. I illustrate the point by calling attention to examples of artistic, romantic, and supererogatory altruistic decisions; in at least some cases of this sort, even highly influential decisions can legitimately be kept entirely private and opaque. (shrink)

With its potential to contribute to the ethical governance of AI, eXplainable AI (XAI) research frequently asserts its relevance to ethical considerations. Yet, the substantiation of these claims with rigorous ethical analysis and reflection remains largely unexamined. This contribution endeavors to scrutinize the relationship between XAI and ethical considerations. By systematically reviewing research papers mentioning ethical terms in XAI frameworks and tools, we investigate the extent and depth of ethical discussions in scholarly research. We observe a limited and often superficial (...) engagement with ethical theories, with a tendency to acknowledge the importance of ethics, yet treating it as a monolithic and not contextualized concept. Our findings suggest a pressing need for a more nuanced and comprehensive integration of ethics in XAI research and practice. To support this, we propose to critically reconsider transparency and explainability in regards to ethical considerations during XAI systems design while accounting for ethical complexity in practice. As future research directions, we point to the promotion of interdisciplinary collaborations and education, also for underrepresented ethical perspectives. Such ethical grounding can guide the design of ethically robust XAI systems, aligning technical advancements with ethical considerations. (shrink)

Issues of reliability are claiming center-stage in the epistemology of machine learning. This paper unifies different branches in the literature and points to promising research directions, whilst also providing an accessible introduction to key concepts in statistics and machine learning – as far as they are concerned with reliability.

Artificial intelligent (AI) systems that perform image classification tasks are being used to great success in many application contexts. However, many of these systems are opaque, even to experts. This lack of understanding can be problematic for ethical, legal, or practical reasons. The research field Explainable AI (XAI) has therefore developed several approaches to explain image classifiers. The hope is to bring about understanding, e.g., regarding why certain images are classified as belonging to a particular target class. Most of these (...) approaches use visual explanations. Drawing on Elgin’s work (True enough. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2017), I argue that analyzing what those explanations exemplify can help to assess their suitability for producing understanding. More specifically, I suggest to distinguish between two forms of examples according to their suitability for producing understanding. I call these forms samples and exemplars, respectively. Samples are prone to misinterpretation and thus carry the risk of leading to misunderstanding. Exemplars, by contrast, are intentionally designed or chosen to meet contextual requirements and to mitigate the risk of misinterpretation. They are thus preferable for bringing about understanding. By reviewing several XAI approaches directed at image classifiers, I show that most of them explain with samples. If my analysis is correct, it will be beneficial if such explainability methods use explanations that qualify as exemplars. (shrink)

The stakes associated with an algorithmic decision are often said to play a role in determining whether the decision engenders a right to an explanation. More specifically, “high stakes” decisions are often said to engender such a right to explanation whereas “low stakes” or “non-high” stakes decisions do not. While the overall gist of these ideas is clear enough, the details are lacking. In this paper, we aim to provide these details through a detailed investigation of what we will call (...) the “Simple Stakes Thesis”. The Simple Stakes Thesis, as it will turn out, is too simple. For even if the stakes associated with a specific one-off decision are low—and hence does not engender a right to an explanation—such decisions may nevertheless form part of a high stakes pattern or aggregate of decisions. In such cases, we argue, even a low stakes decision may engender a right to explanation. Not only does this show that the right to explanation is more demanding than so far recognized. It also shows that the stakes thesis is significantly harder to apply in practice. (shrink)

I argue that ML models used in science function as highly idealized toy models. If we treat ML models as a type of highly idealized toy model, then we can deploy standard representational and epistemic strategies from the toy model literature to explain why ML models can still provide epistemic success despite their lack of similarity to their targets.

The ongoing explosion of interest in artificial intelligence is fueled in part by recently developed techniques in machine learning. Those techniques allow automated systems to process huge amounts of data, utilizing mathematical methods that depart from traditional statistical approaches, and resulting in impressive advancements in our ability to make predictions and uncover correlations across a host of interesting domains. But as is now widely discussed, the way that those systems arrive at their outputs is often opaque, even to the experts (...) who design and deploy them. Is it morally problematic to make use of opaque automated methods when making high-stakes decisions, like whether to issue a loan to an applicant, or whether to approve a parole request? Many scholars answer in the affirmative. However, there is no widely accepted explanation for why transparent systems are morally preferable to opaque systems. We argue that the use of automated decision-making systems sometimes violates duties of consideration that are owed by decision-makers to decision-subjects, duties that are both epistemic and practical in character. Violations of that kind generate a weighty consideration against the use of opaque decision systems. In the course of defending our approach, we show that it is able to address three major challenges sometimes leveled against attempts to defend the moral import of transparency in automated decision-making. (shrink)

I argue that, given the way that AI models work and the way that ordinary human rationality works, it is very likely that people are anthropomorphizing AI, with potentially serious consequences. There are good reasons to doubt that LLMs have anything like human understanding, and even if they have representations or meaningful contents in some sense, these are unlikely to correspond to our ordinary understanding of natural language. However, there are natural, and in some ways quite rational, pressures to anthropomorphize (...) or personify LLMs and other AI systems in biased ways. This includes not only the classical or obvious ways of personifying AI — taking them to be sentient or have consciousness and understanding — but also taking AI to simulate or function like understanding, track the meaning of our language and our reasoning or logic, or have a model of the world our language is about. These more subtle or unobvious forms of anthropomorphism or personification can contribute to automation bias, AI Hype, and all their attendant risks, and encourage stronger anthropomorphisms as multi-modal AI assistants are developed further. (shrink)

An important module in the Belief-Desire-Intention architecture for artificial agents (which builds on Michael Bratman's work in the philosophy of action) focuses on the task of intention reconsideration. The theoretical task is to formulate principles governing when an agent ought to undo a prior committed intention and reopen deliberation. Extant proposals for such a principle, if sufficiently detailed, are either too task-specific or too computationally demanding. I propose that an agent ought to reconsider an intention whenever some incompatible prospect is (...) sufficiently valuable along some dimension that can be assessed at zero or near-zero computational cost. (shrink)

When is it justified to use opaque artificial intelligence (AI) output in medical decision-making? Consideration of this question is of central importance for the responsible use of opaque machine learning (ML) models, which have been shown to produce accurate and reliable diagnoses, prognoses, and treatment suggestions in medicine. In this article, I discuss the merits of two answers to the question. According to the Explanation View, clinicians must have access to an explanation of why an output was produced. According to (...) the Validation View, it is sufficient that the AI system has been validated using established standards for safety and reliability. I defend the Explanation View against two lines of criticism, and I argue that within the framework of evidence-based medicine mere validation seems insufficient for the use of AI output. I end by characterizing the epistemic responsibility of clinicians and point out how a mere AI output cannot in itself ground a practical conclusion about what to do. (shrink)