Titlebook: (Un)explainable Technology; Hendrik Kempt Book 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 Ethics o

burgeon

書(shū)目名稱(chēng)(Un)explainable Technology影響因子(影響力)




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)(Un)explainable Technology影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)(Un)explainable Technology網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開(kāi)度




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)(Un)explainable Technology網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開(kāi)度學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)(Un)explainable Technology被引頻次




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)(Un)explainable Technology被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)(Un)explainable Technology年度引用




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)(Un)explainable Technology年度引用學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)(Un)explainable Technology讀者反饋




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)(Un)explainable Technology讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

archetype

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-5373-4xplainability, interpretability, contestability, certifiability, auditability, post-hoc rationalizability, and transparency. In outlining the different epistemic and practical purposes pursued with these techniques, we can determine and disambiguate some of the confusion present in the debate, and c

panorama

粉筆

Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse,e turn towards the deontologically motivated debate of “right to explanation” and their arguments. In refuting that approach on theoretical and practical grounds, we instead introduce the idea of a “claim to expertise”, which preserves our practices and allows unexplainable technology to be added to

松馳

極力證明

ethnology

Chauvinistic

978-3-031-68100-4The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

膽小懦夫

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-5522-6By summarizing the points made in this book, this chapter concludes the line of argument. Explainability appears less relevant in most contexts, and in those in which it does, having expert advocates work on your behalf is the precedented, more established, and less disruptive solution.

Nausea

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-5373-4xplainability, interpretability, contestability, certifiability, auditability, post-hoc rationalizability, and transparency. In outlining the different epistemic and practical purposes pursued with these techniques, we can determine and disambiguate some of the confusion present in the debate, and clarify what it actually is we are interested in.