Reliable AI Needs to Externalize Implicit Knowledge: A Human-AI Collaboration Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.02010v1
• Date: Sun, 03 May 2026 18:31:45 GMT
• Title: Reliable AI Needs to Externalize Implicit Knowledge: A Human-AI Collaboration Perspective
• Abstract summary: Implicit knowledge is unexternalized because documentation cost exceeds perceived value.<n>Current reliability methods can only verify explicit knowledge against sources.<n>We propose Knowledge Objects (KOs) -- structured artifacts that externalize implicit knowledge into forms humans can inspect, verify, and endorse.
• Score: 18.284119243990062
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This position paper argues that reliable AI requires infrastructure for human validation of implicit knowledge. AI learns from both explicit knowledge (papers, documentation, structured databases) and implicit knowledge (reasoning patterns, debugging processes, intermediate steps). Implicit knowledge remains unexternalized because documentation cost exceeds perceived value -- yet AI learns from it indiscriminately, acquiring both beneficial patterns and harmful biases. Current reliability methods can only verify explicit knowledge against sources, creating a fundamental gap: the most valuable AI capabilities (reasoning, judgment, intuition) are precisely those we cannot verify. We propose Knowledge Objects (KOs) -- structured artifacts that externalize implicit knowledge into forms humans can inspect, verify, and endorse. KOs transform verification economics: what was previously too costly to verify becomes feasible, enabling accumulated human validation to improve reliability over time.

Related papers

• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• Building Trustworthy AI for Materials Discovery: From Autonomous Laboratories to Z-scores [0.09999629695552194]
  Key challenge in using AI is ensuring that human scientists trust the models are valid and reliable.<n>We evaluate whether reported machine learning methods are generalizable, interpretable, fair, transparent, explainable, robust, and stable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-30T21:02:00Z)
• Operationalising Extended Cognition: Formal Metrics for Corporate Knowledge and Legal Accountability [0.0]
  We argue that corporate knowledge may be redefined as a dynamic capability, measurable by the efficiency of its information-access procedures.<n>We map these quantitative metrics onto the legal standards of actual knowledge, constructive knowledge, wilful blindness, and recklessness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T20:03:57Z)
• A Community-driven vision for a new Knowledge Resource for AI [54.6699845861346]
  Despite the success of knowledge resources like WordNet, verifiable, general-purpose widely available sources of knowledge remain a critical deficiency in AI infrastructure.<n>This paper synthesizes our findings and outlines a community-driven vision for a new knowledge infrastructure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-19T20:51:28Z)
• AI and the Problem of Knowledge Collapse [0.0]
  We identify conditions under which AI, by reducing the cost of access to certain modes of knowledge, can paradoxically harm public understanding. We provide a simple model in which a community of learners or innovators choose to use traditional methods or to rely on a discounted AI-assisted process. In our default model, a 20% discount on AI-generated content generates public beliefs 2.3 times further from the truth than when there is no discount.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:06:23Z)
• Beyond Factuality: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models as Knowledge Generators [78.63553017938911]
  Large language models (LLMs) outperform information retrieval techniques for downstream knowledge-intensive tasks. However, community concerns abound regarding the factuality and potential implications of using this uncensored knowledge. We introduce CONNER, designed to evaluate generated knowledge from six important perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T08:22:37Z)
• Decker: Double Check with Heterogeneous Knowledge for Commonsense Fact Verification [80.31112722910787]
  We propose Decker, a commonsense fact verification model that is capable of bridging heterogeneous knowledge. Experimental results on two commonsense fact verification benchmark datasets, CSQA2.0 and CREAK demonstrate the effectiveness of our Decker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T06:28:16Z)
• Trustworthy AI [75.99046162669997]
  Brittleness to minor adversarial changes in the input data, ability to explain the decisions, address the bias in their training data, are some of the most prominent limitations. We propose the tutorial on Trustworthy AI to address six critical issues in enhancing user and public trust in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-02T20:04:18Z)
• Deceptive AI Explanations: Creation and Detection [3.197020142231916]
  We investigate how AI models can be used to create and detect deceptive explanations. As an empirical evaluation, we focus on text classification and alter the explanations generated by GradCAM. We evaluate the effect of deceptive explanations on users in an experiment with 200 participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-21T16:41:22Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.