A starting point for discussion
The idea
An algorithm may be understandable to people with expert training, but that may still not be enough when it affects political decisions.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
Warns that specialist-level interpretability may not suffice for political acceptability.
People need to understand decisions before they can check them
Challenges the idea that specialist review alone supplies meaningful public understanding or challenge.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
People with technical training may understand how an algorithm works, while the wider public may still find it hard to judge.
Why it matters
If an algorithm affects public decisions, its explanation may need to help people beyond the technical specialists who work with it.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the author manuscript from an accessible mirror; not the publisher typeset version. A note in the passage says that being able to understand how an algorithm works is often taken to mean that suitably trained peers can understand it, and that this would not be enough for political purposes. Addresses: The limits of specialist understanding
Questions this connects to
AI-suggested relationships. Authors have not necessarily responded to one another.
How strong is this claim?
AI assessment · not a probability or a final resolution
The passage says that explanations meant for trained specialists may not be enough for political purposes. It does not assess other ways to explain how an algorithm works.
See the assessment in detail
The passage describes how the author understands the term, but gives no study of whether the public can understand how algorithms work.