Post-Hoc Explanations Fail to Achieve their Purpose in Adversarial
  Contexts
  Existing and planned legislation stipulates various obligations to provide
information about machine learning algorithms and their functioning, often
interpreted as obligations to "explain". Many researchers suggest using
post-hoc explanation algorithms for this purpose. In this paper, we combine
legal, philosophical and technical arguments to show that post-hoc explanation
algorithms are unsuitable to achieve the law's objectives. Indeed, most
situations where explanations are requested are adversarial, meaning that the
explanation provider and receiver have opposing interests and incentives, so
that the provider might manipulate the explanation for her own ends. We show
that this fundamental conflict cannot be resolved because of the high degree of
ambiguity of post-hoc explanations in realistic application scenarios. As a
consequence, post-hoc explanation algorithms are unsuitable to achieve the
transparency objectives inherent to the legal norms. Instead, there is a need
to more explicitly discuss the objectives underlying "explainability"
obligations as these can often be better achieved through other mechanisms.
There is an urgent need for a more open and honest discussion regarding the
potential and limitations of post-hoc explanations in adversarial contexts, in
particular in light of the current negotiations of the European Union's draft
Artificial Intelligence Act.
