Contestable AI needs Computational Argumentation

TL;DR

This paper advocates for integrating computational argumentation into AI to enable dynamic explainability and contestability, aligning AI systems with regulatory and ethical standards.

Contribution

It proposes a framework where AI systems can interact, explain, and revise decisions through computational argumentation to achieve contestability.

Findings

Highlights the importance of dynamic explainability for contestable AI.

Suggests computational argumentation as a suitable approach for contestability.

Calls for a radical redesign of AI systems to incorporate contestability features.

Abstract

AI has become pervasive in recent years, but state-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. Instead, contestability is advocated by AI guidelines (e.g. by the OECD) and regulation of automated decision-making (e.g. GDPR). In this position paper we explore how contestability can be achieved computationally in and for AI. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes, whereby machines can (i) interact with humans and/or other machines to progressively explain their outputs and/or their reasoning as well as assess grounds for contestation provided by these humans and/or other machines, and (ii) revise their decision-making processes to redress any issues successfully raised during contestation. Given that much of the current AI landscape is tailored to static AIs, the need to accommodate contestability will require a radical rethinking, that, we argue, computational argumentation is ideally suited to support.