A documentary called "Murder on a Sunday Morning": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFLbptkb1eM
A woman was murdered in front of her husband. The man saw the attacker up close and was the only eyewitness.
He accused a completely innocent man, and it took half a year of jail and court-related turmoils for this to get cleared up.
We explain how to understand handwriting to every single child that goes to school. It's not the answer you want, but it's the answer that actually matters here.
Trying to equivocate AI and human cognition in this way is completely disingenuous.
Human reasoning is not 100% reliable, but we know very well in which ways it's unreliable and how to deal with it. We have shared biology and millennia of experience trying to empathize and communicate with others.
And your last point is wrong. ML models are studied and understood much better than human reasoning.
Teaching children to read is an interactive process that has pretty much nothing in common with data steamrolling in modern machine learning.
>And your last point is wrong. ML models are studied and understood much better than human reasoning.
Is that why new ANN architectures are almost universally constructed by trial and error?
Algorithms can be explainable, and I agree that anything that affects your standing in the eyes of government should have that as a minimum requirement.
There's a recent review that they published.
I do not want to speak for the parent but I think you might be on a different level of abstraction when talking about "explaining" things. Consider this for example: someone writes a letter to your boss that you should be fired. That someone does not need to explain the process of writing but probably should be required to explain why you should be fired.