Well I'd argue that if you take this approach to hiring, you can only hire people who share your area of expertise, that thinks the way you do. This is not generally the case with how ML models work. You could create an explainable model that shows you the things you want to see as part of it's decisions, but (a) that won't take advantage of the full strengths on ML, it's more like a hard coded model (b) it just pushes the problem down a level - great, it said it's a dog because it has teeth, how does it know what teeth are, (c) it still is subject failure on out of distribution or extrapolated sample data. Like I say, there is a place for explanations, especially for the ML scientist working on building a model. But for "managing" the model as I imagine one would in a healthcare setting, I think explainability as commonly construed (feature attribution) is the wrong focus
back
1 comments
> Well I'd argue that if you take this approach to hiring, you can only hire people who share your area of expertise, that thinks the way you do.
What? Why?
There are different modes of reasoning. When I am to assess to quality of other peoples reasoning, I do not necessarily need to be an expert or have them think like I do.
Think semantics. You have declarative an operational semantics. It is perfectly alright to have multiple implementation of the same type deceleration, multiple proofs of the same proposition. It is not not really the proof that is of interest, but what modus of reasoning was used to arrive there.
I declare the role I need in a hiring position. And the person being interviewed tells me how she inhabits that role. I assess that is actually constitutes and inhabation.
Though it appears that we fundamentally agree as I read from you last sentence, that the "removal" of the explainable parts are only a last step before deployment.
> But for "managing" the model ...