Talk:Explainable artificial intelligence

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 19 July 2017 by reviewer SwisterTwister (talk · contribs).

Technology Start‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Recent edits

@AIxprt: This recent edit removed one of the references from this article. Why did you remove this reference? Jarble (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes for History Section, Research in Explanation in the 70s, 80s, and 90s in Symbolic AI

The previous discussion of XAI did not address the large amount of work done in explanation in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Although XAI is commonly used in the context of deep learning, to restrict discussions of XAI to deep learning alone is to presuppose that XAI will only be developed in that context and not in the context of hybrid symbolic / deep learning systems. Minimally to address the historical record, the earlier work needs to be further addressed.

I just wanted to explain a bit more about the changes I added to flesh out the history of explanation in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The previous coverage only mentioned MYCIN, ignoring explanation research in intelligent tutoring systems, causal reasoning, explanation-based learning, and truth maintenance systems that I have tried to correct.

Indeed, much more could also be said about the ability of current ontological, semantic web, knowledge based, and intelligent tutoring systems to support explanation. I haven't pursued that at this point, or the point about symbolic approaches addressing primarily what Daniel Kahneman calls Type II systems while deep learning approaches better address Type I systems. I know that Yoshua Bengio and Gary Marcus have debated this, while others such as Doug Lenat, Chris Re, and Oren Etzioni, and others I am most likely missing have also made this distinction. The point here is just to give prior work its due, without taking away from all the amazing accomplishments of deep learning.

Yet more could be said about the work of explanation in abduction, such as Jerry Hobbs’ work on Tacitus. More could be said about the role of explanation in explanation-based reasoning and reasoning by analogy, as covered by some of the chapters in Machine Learning, Volume III. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Discussion of Work in 70s, 80s, and 90s

Mindpit deleted the discussion I added of the history in symbolic reasoning work that focused on work related to explanation during the 70s-90s. The explanation was that it 'Removed an unnecessary line(and its references) that seems to have been put by one of the authors of the cited paper in order to promote his work.', but no explanation was provided on the talk page, and no mention of which work or reference was in question.

I am not the author or a co-author of ANY work cited in the text I added. If Mindpit has a specific objection to a reference could he / she please let me know and we can add other alternatives to make the same point?

The point of the section is show the nature and volume of the work in symbolic reasoning at that time relevant to explanation, and to provide concrete examples to illustrate what is being discussed. If there is an objection to a specific reference, I can find other references to make the same point.

I'd request that Mindpit only remove the line or reference they object to, or which they desire additional references for, and not the whole section, too. I wanted to send a notice to Mindpit, but could not find a user or talk page for him or her, if he or she wants to reply here or notify me of any comments or disagreements.

Thanks.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]