  A central goal of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is to improve the
trust relationship in human-AI interaction. One assumption underlying research
in transparent AI systems is that explanations help to better assess
predictions of machine learning (ML) models, for instance by enabling humans to
identify wrong predictions more efficiently. Recent empirical evidence however
shows that explanations can have the opposite effect: When presenting
explanations of ML predictions humans often tend to trust ML predictions even
when these are wrong. Experimental evidence suggests that this effect can be
attributed to how intuitive, or human, an AI or explanation appears. This
effect challenges the very goal of XAI and implies that responsible usage of
transparent AI methods has to consider the ability of humans to distinguish
machine generated from human explanations. Here we propose a quantitative
metric for XAI methods based on Turing's imitation game, a Turing Test for
Transparency. A human interrogator is asked to judge whether an explanation was
generated by a human or by an XAI method. Explanations of XAI methods that can
not be detected by humans above chance performance in this binary
classification task are passing the test. Detecting such explanations is a
requirement for assessing and calibrating the trust relationship in human-AI
interaction. We present experimental results on a crowd-sourced text
classification task demonstrating that even for basic ML models and XAI
approaches most participants were not able to differentiate human from machine
generated explanations. We discuss ethical and practical implications of our
results for applications of transparent ML.
