人工智能可解释性的技术困境与法律消解
The Technical Dilemma of Artificial Intelligence Explainability and Legal Resolution
DOI: 10.12677/ass.2025.1411988, PDF,   
作者: 王奕翔:暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院,广东 广州
关键词: 人工智能可解释性算法黑箱Artificial Intelligence Explainability Algorithmic Black Box
摘要: 人工智能技术的持续突破,正在以颠覆性的力量重塑全球科技创新与产业经济发展格局。然而,人工智能的迅速发展也带来了诸多风险,其中人工智能的“算法黑箱”现象和不确定性导致人们无法理解人工智能的决策和输出,从而引发信任危机和归责困境,很大程度上阻碍了人工智能产业的发展。本文从人工智能的“算法黑箱”本质出发分析其可解释性问题,分别从技术角度、用户信任和法律价值三个角度论证对人工智能可解释性进行法律规制的必要性和可行性。在明确可解释性和透明度的定义和区别的基础上,将可解释性分为面向用户和专业人员两方面的可解释性,从可追溯、可视化、反事实解释三个角度构建面向用户的可解释性要求,提出根据领域分类的“硬法”“软法”可解释性要求,以法律引导、促进人工智能技术的安全、可靠、可信任的发展。
Abstract: The continuous breakthroughs in artificial intelligence technology are reshaping the global pattern of technological innovation and industrial economic development with disruptive power. However, the rapid development of artificial intelligence has also brought many risks, among which the phenomenon of the “algorithmic black box” and uncertainty lead to people’s inability to understand the decisions and outputs of artificial intelligence, thus triggering a crisis of trust and accountability dilemma, which largely hinders the development of the artificial intelligence industry. This paper analyzes the interpretability issues starting from the essence of the “algorithmic black box” of artificial intelligence, demonstrating the necessity and feasibility of legal regulation of artificial intelligence interpretability from three perspectives: technological perspective, user trust, and legal value. Based on clarifying the definitions and distinctions of interpretability and transparency, interpretability is divided into user-facing and professional interpretability. From the three angles of traceability, visualization, and counterfactual explanation, user-facing interpretability requirements are constructed, proposing “hard law” and “soft law” interpretability requirements categorized by fields to guide and promote the safe, reliable, and trustworthy development of artificial intelligence technology through law.
文章引用:王奕翔. 人工智能可解释性的技术困境与法律消解[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2025, 14(11): 206-213. https://doi.org/10.12677/ass.2025.1411988

参考文献

[1] 谢佛荣, 景海龙, 邓菲菲. 人工智能的可解释性问题探析——基于因果关系视角[J]. 南华大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 23(4): 40-45.
[2] 张吉祥, 张祥森, 武长旭, 赵增顺. 知识图谱构建技术综述[J]. 计算机工程, 2022, 48(3): 23-37.
[3] 尹艳霞. 大数据环境下机器学习模型的可解释性研究[J]. 电脑知识与技术, 2025, 21(5): 58-60+63.
[4] 《数学辞海》编辑委员会. 数学辞海[M]. 太原: 山西教育出版社, 2002.
[5] Siegenfeld, A.F. and Bar-Yam, Y. (2020) An Introduction to Complex Systems Science and Its Applications. Complexity, 2020, 1-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[6] 纪守领, 李进锋, 杜天宇, 等. 机器学习模型可解释性方法、应用与安全研究综述[J]. 计算机研究与发展, 2019, 56(10): 2071-2096.
[7] taoKingRead. 模型可解释性-LIME [EB/OL].
https://blog.csdn.net/iqdutao/article/details/108397239, 2025-10-09.
[8] RessMatthew. 一篇入门: 彻底搞懂模型解释神器SHAP的核心原理与实践[EB/OL].
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1926315437081228126, 2025-10-09.
[9] 金龙君. 生成式AI的不可解释性及其法治应对[J]. 法治研究, 2025(2): 42-53.
[10] 孙晋, 顾瑞琪. 基于算法透明度和可解释性优化的算法治理制度构建[J]. 数字法治, 2023(2): 64-75.
[11] 苏宇. 优化算法可解释性及透明度义务之诠释与展开[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2022, 40(1): 133-141.
[12] 周辉. 人工智能可解释的制度建构[J]. 山东师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2025, 70(1): 94-106.
[13] Ződi, Z. (2022) Algorithmic Explainability and Legal Reasoning. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 10, 67-92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[14] 郑飞, 朱溯蓉. 人工智能“可解释性”的两个维度及其适用[J]. 大连理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2025, 46(2): 80-87.
[15] Der Hamburgische Beauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit (2025) Zwischenbilanz 2025: HmbBfDI verhängt Bußgelder von insgesamt 775.000 Euro.
https://datenschutz-hamburg.de/news/zwischenbilanz-2025-hmbbfdi-verhaengt-bussgelder-von-insgesamt-775000-euro