Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper argues for a right to explanation.The argument is structured according to an interest-based account of rights, where rights are constraints on the discretion of decision-makers to act that are necessary to protect a weighty, widespread interest against standing threats, and come at a tolerable cost.The right to explanation is grounded in the interest in so-called informed self-advocacy, or the ability to represent one's interests and values to decision-makers and to conform one's behavior to a set of rules.Institutional opacity, both in the form of algorithmic decision-making and complex institutional rules, is argued to threaten the interest in informed selfadvocacy.Explanations are necessary means to protect this interest, and their provision comes at a tolerable cost.Finally, a new content of the right to explanation is proposed, in the form of rule-based explanations and population-level causal explanations provided by free experts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kate Vredenburgh (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: