AI transparency: a matter of reconciling design with critique
Open accessAbstract
In the late 2010s, various international committees, expert groups, and national strategy boards have voiced the demand to ‘open’ the algorithmic black box, to audit, expound, and demystify artificial intelligence. The opening of the algorithmic black box, however, cannot be seen only as an engineering challenge. In this article, I argue that only the sort of transparency that arises from critique—a method of theoretical examination that, by revealing pre-existing power structures, aims to challenge them—can help us produce technological systems that are less deceptive and more just. I relate the question of AI transparency to the broader challenge of responsible making, contending that future action must aim to systematically reconcile design—as a way of concealing—with critique—as a manner of revealing.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Making AI system data and models visible is not the same as holding whole socio-technical assemblages accountable.
“Making AI system data and models visible is not the same as holding whole socio-technical assemblages accountable.”
From Tensions in transparent urban AI: designing a smart electric vehicle charge point (2023) · cites this paper as Hollanek 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 35
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Ethically Aligned Design, First Edition (2019) https ://stand ards.ieee. org/conte nt/dam/ieee-stand ards/stand ards/web/docum ents/other / ead1e .pdf. (Accessed 10 Dec 2019)
- Stiegler B (2014, 2015) Symbolic misery, Volume 1 and Volume 2. Polity Press, Cambridge
- Weller A (2017) Transparency: motivations and challenges. https :// arxiv .org/abs/1708.01870 . (Accessed 02 Dec 2019)
- Authors
- Hollanek, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hollanek, Tomasz
- ORCID
- Hollanek, Tomasz
- Venue
- AI & SOCIETY
- Published
- 2020-11-17
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2071-2079
- ISSN
- 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-5655
- OpenAlex
- W3105522468
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 5.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (cc-by)
- Funders
- University of Cambridge
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- AI transparency, algorithmic black box, critique, design, power structures, algorithmic auditing, AI ethics, concealment and revelation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
