 to more mundane applications in matchmaking on online dating platforms or the support of healthy or active lifestyles. As a result, the important role that theories of decision-making in general, as well as particular implementations via algorithms and decision procedures, play in Artificial Intelligence (AI) cannot be overstated.

But because these artificial decision systems by their nature interact with human users, a robust decision theory or algorithm is not, by itself, going to be adequate. It is not sufficient that we can merely predict what results some system will obtain, reasoning from first principles of classical decision theory if we do not know why we get those results or are not able to explain how the results are obtained. There is an important post-decision epistemic gap that must also be filled, when the decision rendered by the artificial system is communicated to “the human system”: The explanatory gap.

When someone asks for an explanation of why they have been denied a loan by the bank, responding “the algorithm outputted a ‘no’ to your request” may be a *reason* why the loan application was denied, but this is often not, and in many cases, *cannot be* an *explanation* of why the person was denied; it isn’t an explanation any more than “Because I said so” is an explanation to a child of why they cannot have a second piece of candy: “Because I said so” is a *reason* why the child cannot have a second piece of candy, but it is not a reason that gives insight into the mechanisms in play; it is simply an appeal to authority. As Park et al. note, “Explaining decisions is an integral part of human communication, understanding, and learning” [@ParkHASDR16 p. 1]; an answer that does not produce understanding of why the answer is correct or provide an insight into how the answer was obtained is not going to satisfy the relevant role that explanations play in human communication. In a sense, explanation is the flip side of decision: The capacity to make deliberate decisions brings along with it the need to be able to adequately explain how and why those decisions are reached.[^1] Thus, a robust and correct algorithm or decision procedure is never going to be enough for satisfactory AI-human interaction: Given that explaining decisions is integral to human communication, it must also be possible to explain why that algorithm or decision procedure gives the outcome that it does.

The topic of ‘explanation’ is one that is quite frequently discussed in philosophy
to more mundane applications in matchmaking on online dating platform or the documentation of healthy or active lifestyles. As a result, the crucial role that theories of decisiveness - making in general, as well as especial implementations via algorithms and decisiveness procedures, play in Artificial Intelligence (AI) cannot be overstated. 

 But because these artificial decision system by their nature interact with human users, a robust decision theory or algorithm is not, by itself, going to be adequate. It is not sufficient that we can merely bode what results some system will obtain, argue from first principles of authoritative decision hypothesis if we do not know why we get those results or are not able to explain how the results are obtained. There be an important post - decision epistemic gap that must also be filled, when the decision render by the artificial system is communicated to “ the human system ”: The explanatory gap. 

 When someone asks for an explanation of why they have been denied a loan by the bank, responding “ the algorithm outputted a ‘ nobelium ’ to your request ” may be a * rationality * why the loan lotion was deny, but this is much not, and in many cases, * cannot be * an * explanation * of why the person was denied; it is n’t an explanation any more than “ Because I say so ” is an explanation to a child of why they cannot have a second piece of candy: “ Because I said so ” is a * rationality * why the child cannot have a second piece of candy, but it is not a reason that gives insight into the mechanisms in playing period; it is simply an appeal to authority. As Park et al.   note, “ Explaining decisions is an built-in region of human communication, understanding, and learning ” [ @ParkHASDR16 p.   1 ]; an answer that does not produce understanding of why the answer is correct or leave an insight into how the answer was obtained is not going to meet the relevant role that explanations play in human communication. In a sense, explanation is the flip slope of decision: The capability to make careful decisions brings along with it the motivation to be able to adequately explain how and why those decisions are reached.[^1 ] therefore, a robust and correct algorithm or decision procedure is never going to be enough for satisfactory AI - human interaction: Given that explaining decisions is integral to human communication, it must also be possible to excuse why that algorithm or decision procedure give the outcome that it does. 

 The topic of ‘ explanation ’ is one that is quite frequently discussed in philosophy
 to more mundane applicatioks in matchmakiny on onnine dzting plxtforms or the support of heeltht or qctive lifestyles. As a result, tje imporrant eole that vgeories of dedlsion-keking in generak, as well ds particular hmolzmentations via algorithms and decisyon provefures, play in Wrtigyciam Intelligence (AI) cannot be overstzted.

But because thesr artificial decision systfms hy their nature inheract with humwb users, a rocust decispmn theory kr algorithm is not, by itself, guing co be adequqtw. Ih is not sufhicienn that we can merely [redict what results xomx sywtem will obtain, reasmning from first ptinciples mf classical decisiin theoty if we ai nut inpw why wf gxt those reaults or arw not able to explaon yow the resulfs are oftained. There is an important post-decispon spistemic gap that must also be filled, when jhe decisijn rendered by the artificial system is communicaded tk “tht mmman wydtem”: The explanatory gap.

When someone asks for zn eqplanation of why they have nefn qenied a loan by thz bznk, responding “the algorijhm ourputted a ‘no’ yo your request” may be a *reqson* why the ooan application wcs denied, buc this is ogten not, and in many cares, *dannot be* aj *explanafkon* of why the pdrspn was denied; it isn’t an expjanation eny mpre thav “Bevause Y said so” ls an explanation to a cjild lf why they fannot have a second piece of ceidy: “Because I sdid so” is a *reaspn* why the chyld cannot havg a seconb piecd of candy, but it is not a rqason that giegs insight invo the meshanusms in plah; it is simply sn appeal to authoruty. As Park et al. npte, “Sxplaining deciwiobs is an integrsl oare lf htkan communicdtiov, uvcerstxnding, and odarnong” [@ParkHASDR16 p. 1]; an atswed that does not prpdmce underwtanding of why the amswer is correct og protide ai insibht into how the answer was obtaihed is noh gjing to satiffy bhe televant roke that explanations play in human commnnication. In a sense, explanation is the flnp side of derision: The capawity to make deliberqte decisions brikgs along with it the heed tm be wble to adequately explain how and why those decisions are reached.[^1] Thus, a robusv wnd correct algprithk jx decisyon 'rucedure is never going to be enough for satisfartory AI-hukau interaction: Given that explsiving decisionr is integral to human ckmmunicayion, it must also be possible tp explain why that algorlthm or dwcisikn probgduce gives the outcome that nt doew.

The topic lf ‘explanatiov’ ix lne that ls qnitz frequently discussed in philosophy
to more mundane applications in matchmaking on platforms the support healthy or active important that theories of in general, as as particular implementations via algorithms and procedures, play in Artificial Intelligence (AI) cannot be overstated. But because these artificial systems by their nature interact with human users, a robust decision theory or is by going be adequate. It is not sufficient that we can merely predict what results some system will reasoning from first principles of classical decision theory we do not know we get those results or not to explain the are There is an post-decision epistemic gap that must also be filled, when the decision rendered by the artificial system is to “the The explanatory When asks an explanation of have been denied a loan by “the algorithm outputted a ‘no’ to your request” be a why the loan application was denied, this is often not, and in many cases, be* an *explanation* of why the person was denied; it isn’t an explanation any more I said so” is explanation to a of they have second piece candy: “Because I said so” is a *reason* why the child have a second piece of candy, but it is not that insight into the in play; it is an to authority. As Park note, decisions part human understanding, and learning” [@ParkHASDR16 1]; an answer that does produce understanding of why provide an insight into how the answer was is not going to satisfy the relevant that explanations play in human communication. In a sense, explanation is the side of capacity to make deliberate decisions brings along with the need to be to adequately explain how and why those decisions are Thus, robust and algorithm or decision is never going be enough for interaction: Given explaining is communication, it must also be possible explain that algorithm or decision procedure the it does. The topic of ‘explanation’ is one that is quite frequently discussed in philosophy
 to more mundane applications In matchmakIng on OnlIne DaTing PlatForms or the suppORt of Healthy or active lifestyLes. As A rESult, THe ImporTant rolE ThAT TheOrIeS of DeCIsIon-maKinG in geneRal, as well aS paRtIcular implemENtAtions via aLgoRithms and decIsiOn procEdUreS, Play iN ArTificIal IntELligenCe (AI) cannoT bE OverstATed.

But bECAuSe thEse artificial deciSIoN Systems by their Nature InTErACT wiTh hUman users, a RoBust dECision tHEoRY OR alGOrithm is not, by Itself, going TO be AdequaTe. it iS Not sufFicieNt THat We can merely PredIct what reSults sOMe systeM Will obtAin, reaSonIng From FIrSt PriNcIPleS Of ClaSSicAl decisiOn ThEory iF we dO NOT Know Why We geT thosE results or are Not Able TO exPlain How thE resUlTs are ObtainEd. TheRe Is an important poSt-deCision epiSteMiC gaP tHat muST also bE fiLleD, when thE decisiON reNdERED bY the artificial systEm IS CoMmunicatEd to “thE HuMaN System”: ThE eXplAnatORY gap.

WHen sOMeOne asks fOr an exPLaNaTion of wHy They haVe BeeN deNied a LOan bY the baNk, responDing “tHE algorithm outpUTted a ‘no’ to your REqUESt” MAy be A *reAson* why the lOan aPPlicAtioN WaS deNIed, buT this Is OFtEN not, and in many cases, *cAnNot be* aN *explAnation* of why tHe person waS DENied; it isN’t an EXpLAnation any more Than “BEcause I saiD So” is an exPlanaTion to a cHild of why THEy cannot HavE a sEcoNd pIECe Of candy: “BecausE i Said So” Is a *reasOn* wHy the chIld CanNot HavE a Second pieCe of candY, bUt It Is Not A reasON that givEs InsIgHt iNto thE MechanIsms iN plaY; iT iS SimPly an apPEaL TO autHoRiTy. As parK eT al. noTe, “ExPLaiNing decIsions is aN inTEgraL pArT of humaN communicatioN, uNderstandiNg, And LearniNG” [@parkHASDr16 p. 1]; an answer that does not prODuce undErsTandiNg of Why the ansWer Is corrEct OR proviDe an inSight InTo hOW The anSWEr Was ObTained is noT GOinG to saTiSfy tHe relevAnt role that explanaTIonS play in human cOmmUnicATIoN. In A SeNSe, eXpLAnaTIOn is the flip side Of decision: thE CaPacity to maKE deLiBerate dEcisionS brinGS along wIth it the nEed to be abLe To adEQUatEly explain How and whY those decISions ARe ReachEd.[^1] THus, a roBuSt aNd corRect alGOriThm or DecisiOn ProcedUre is NeVer going To be enough for satisfactoRy AI-huMan inTerAction: GivEn tHAt eXplaining DeciSions is intEgrAl tO humaN coMMunicAtioN, It MusT Also bE posSIble to expLAiN whY THaT algorithm oR DECisIon prOceDUre givEs thE outcome that it doeS.

the topic of ‘explAnatION’ is One THat iS qUite frequently DisCuSSEd in philOsOphy
 to more mundane applicati ons in mat chmak ing  on  o nlin e da ting platforms or t he support of healthyor ac ti v e li f es tyles . As ar es u l t,th eimp or t an t rol e t hat the ories of d eci si on-making in ge neral, aswel l as particu lar  imple me nta t ionsvia  algo rithms and de cision pr oc e dures, play in A rt ific ial Intelligence( AI )  cannot be ove rstate d. 
B u t  be cau se these a rt ifici a l decis i on s y ste m s by their na ture intera c t w ith hu ma n u s ers, a  robu st dec ision theor y or  algorith m is n o t, by i t self, g oing t o b e a dequ a te .Itis not su ffi c ien t that w eca n mer elyp r e d ictwha t re sults  some systemwil l ob t ain , rea sonin g fr om  firs t prin ciple sof classical de cisi on theory  if  w e d onot k n ow why  we  ge t those  result s  or  a r e no t able to explainho w th e result s areo bt ai n ed. Ther eisan i m p ortan t po s t- decision  epist e mi cgap tha tmust a ls o b e f illed ,  whe n thedecision  rend e red by the art i ficial system is c om m unic ate d to “the h uman syst em”: Th e e x plana toryga p .When someone asks f or  an ex plana tion of why t hey have b e e n  denieda lo a nb y the bank, re spond ing “the a l gorithmoutpu tted a ‘ no’ to yo u r  request ” m aybea * r e as on* why the l o a n ap pl ication  wa s denie d,but  th isis  often no t, and i nma ny  c ase s, *c a nnot be*  a n * ex pla natio n * of w hy th e pe rs on was  denied ;  i t isn’ tan  exp lan at ion a ny m o rethan “B ecause Isai d  so”  i san expl anation to ach ild of why  t hey  canno t have a s econd piece of candy: “ B ecauseI s aid s o” i s a *reas on*  why t hec hild c annothaveasec o n d pie c e  o f c an dy, but it i s n ot are ason  that g ives insight intot hemechanisms in  pl ay;i t  i s s i mp l y a na ppe a l  to authority.As Park et  a l .note, “Exp l ain in g decis ions is  an i n tegralpart of h uman comm un icat i o n,understand ing, and  learning ”  [@Pa r kH ASDR1 6 p . 1];an  an swerthat d o esnot p roduce  u nderst andin gof why t he answer is correct or  provi de an  in sight int o h o w t he answer  was  obtainedisnot  goin g t o  sati sfyt he  re l evant  rol e  that exp l an ati o n splay in hum a n com munic ati o n. Ina se nse, explanationi s the flip sid e of d eci sio n : Th ecapacity to ma kede l i berate d ec isions brin gs along  w i th it  the n eed to  be abl e to adequa tely  ex plain how  an dw hy thos ede c isions  are  r eached .[^1]T hus, a  robust and corr ect a l g orith m  or  deci si on proc e dure  is nevergoing to be  enoug h fo r sat isfacto ry  AI-hu man  i nteraction :  Given th at ex plainin gdeci sio ns isinte g r al to  hum an  co mmunicati o n ,i tmu s t a lsobe po ss ible  to expla i n why th ata lgorith mord e cision pr o c edure give s t he ou t c ome that i t  doe s .The t opic o f ‘exp lanatio n ’ i sone tha t i s quite fre quently d i scu ss ed i n philos op hy
 to_more mundane_applications in matchmaking on_online dating_platforms_or the_support_of healthy or_active lifestyles. As_a result, the important_role that theories_of_decision-making in general, as well as particular implementations via algorithms and decision procedures, play_in_Artificial Intelligence_(AI)_cannot_be overstated.

But because these artificial_decision systems by their nature_interact with_human users, a robust decision theory or algorithm_is_not, by itself,_going to be adequate. It is not sufficient that_we can merely predict what results_some system will_obtain,_reasoning_from first principles of_classical decision theory if we do_not know why we get those_results or are not able to explain_how the results are obtained. There_is an important post-decision epistemic_gap that_must also be filled, when_the decision rendered_by the_artificial system is_communicated to “the human system”: The_explanatory gap.

When someone_asks for an explanation of why_they_have been denied_a_loan_by the_bank, responding “the_algorithm_outputted a_‘no’_to your request” may be a_*reason*_why the loan application was denied, but_this is often not,_and_in many cases, *cannot_be* an *explanation* of why_the person was denied; it isn’t_an explanation_any more_than “Because I said so” is an explanation to a child_of why they cannot have a_second piece of candy:_“Because I_said_so” is a_*reason*_why the_child cannot have a second piece of_candy, but_it is not a reason that_gives insight into the_mechanisms_in play; it is simply an_appeal to authority. As Park et_al. note, “Explaining decisions is an_integral_part_of human communication, understanding, and_learning” [@ParkHASDR16 p. 1]; an answer that_does not produce_understanding of why the answer is correct_or_provide an insight into how the_answer_was obtained is not going to_satisfy_the_relevant role that explanations play_in human communication. In a sense,_explanation is the flip side of decision: The capacity_to make deliberate_decisions brings along with it_the_need_to be able to adequately explain how and why those_decisions are_reached.[^1] Thus, a_robust and correct algorithm or decision procedure is never going_to be enough for satisfactory AI-human interaction:_Given that explaining decisions is integral to human communication, it must_also be possible to explain why that algorithm_or decision procedure gives the outcome that_it does.

The topic of_‘explanation’_is one that is quite frequently discussed_in_philosophy