We examine how users perceive the limitations of an AI system when it encounters a task that it cannot perform perfectly and whether providing explanations alongside its answers aids users in constructing an appropriate mental model of the system’s capabilities and limitations. We employ a visual question answer and explanation task where we control the AI system’s limitations by manipulating the visual inputs: during inference, the system either processes full-color or grayscale images. Our goal is to determine whether participants can perceive the limitations of the system. We hypothesize that explanations will make limited AI capabilities more transparent to users. However, our results show that explanations do not have this effect. Instead of allowing users to more accurately assess the limitations of the AI system, explanations generally increase users’ perceptions of the system’s competence – regardless of its actual performance.

Despite recent attempts in the field of explainable AI to go beyond black box prediction models, typically already the training data for supervised machine learning is collected in a manner that treats the annotator as a “black box”, the internal workings of which remains unobserved. We present an annotation method where a task is given to a pair of annotators who collaborate on finding the best response. With this we want to shed light on the questions if the collaboration increases the quality of the responses and if this “thinking together” provides useful information in itself, as it at least partially reveals their reasoning steps. Furthermore, we expect that this setting puts the focus on explanation as a linguistic act, vs. explainability as a property of models. In a crowd-sourcing experiment, we investigated three different annotation tasks, each in a collaborative dialogical (two annotators) and monological (one annotator) setting. Our results indicate that our experiment elicits collaboration and that this collaboration increases the response accuracy. We see large differences in the annotators’ behavior depending on the task. Similarly, we also observe that the dialog patterns emerging from the collaboration vary significantly with the task.