Transparency As Design Publicity: Explaining and Justifying Inscrutable Algorithms

Abstract

In this paper we argue that transparency, just as explanation, can be defined at different levels of abstraction. We criticize recent attempts to identify the explanation of black box algorithms with making their decisions (post-hoc) interpretable. These approaches simplify the real nature of the black boxes and risk misleading the public about the normative features of a model. We propose a new form of transparency, that consists in explaining the artifact as an intentional product, that serves a particular goal, or multiple goals (Daniel Dennet's design stance), and that provides a measure of the extent to which such goal is achieved, and evidence about the way that measure has been reached. We call such idea of transparency 'design publicity'. We argue that design publicity can be more easily linked with the justification of the use and of the design of the algorithm, and of each individual decision following from it. Finally, we argue that when models that pursue justifiable goals (which may include fairness as avoidance of bias towards specific groups) to a justifiable degree are used consistently, the resulting decisions are all justified even if some of them are (unavoidably) based on incorrect predictions. For this argument, we rely on John Rawls's idea of procedural justice applied to algorithms conceived as institutions.

Conformity Assessments and Post-market Monitoring: A Guide to the Role of Auditing in the Proposed European AI Regulation

“…However, before determining whether a specific AI system is legal, one must consider which mechanisms are available to establish its behaviour and performance (i.e. what it is doing at 14 A parallel can be made to what Loi et al (2020) called transparency as design publicity, whereby organisations that design or deploy AI systems are expected to publicise the intentional explanation of the use of a specific system as well as the procedural justification of the decision it takes. 15 The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI) is an independent advisory body to the UK Government.…”

A framework to contest and justify algorithmic decisions

“…Finally, closer to our approach, [22] criticizes "anormative" explanations and calls for the explicit definition of algorithm "goals" that should be understandable. These goals being defined, a decision is justified when the "evidence" that it meets the goals can be provided.…”

Algorithmic transparency and bureaucratic discretion: The case of SALER early warning system

“…Indeed, one of the areas of major concern has been the need to adapt the guarantees provided by the general regulation on transparency and access to public sector information to the algorithms (Cerrillo, 2018), in the light of the fact that the regulatory framework is rather outdated in terms of the IA's requirements. Therefore, the proposals based on the preventive application of general principles in the design of the applications are particularly thought-provoking (Loi et al, 2019). One of the main topics of discussion concerns the transparency of the algorithms and, in particular, when private entities contracted by public administrations participate in their design.…”