Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Response to our reviewers
37
Zitationen
2
Autoren
2021
Jahr
Abstract
We would like to thank the authors of the commentaries for their critical appraisal of our feature article, Who is afraid of black box algorithms?1 Their comments, suggestions and concerns are various, and we are glad that our article contributes to the academic debate about the ethical and epistemic conditions for medical Explanatory AI (XAI). We would like to bring to attention a few issues that are common worries across reviewers. Most prominently are the merits of computational reliabilism (CR)—in particular, when promoted as an alternative to transparency—and CR as necessary but not sufficient for delivering trust. We finalise our response by addressing concerns about the place and role of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical decision-making and the physician’s responsibilities. We understand the concerns and reservations that some of the reviewers express regarding the epistemic merits of CR. We believe that, in part, this is due to a practice too deeply rooted in transparency. But on …
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.339 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.211 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.614 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.776 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.478 Zit.