> We think MAIA augments, but does not replace, human over- sight of AI systems. MAIA still requires human supervision to catch mistakes such as confirmation bias and image generation/editing failures. Absence of evidence (from MAIA) is not evidence of absence: though MAIA’s toolkit enables causal interventions on inputs in order to evaluate system behavior, MAIA’s explanations do not provide formal verification of system performance.

For folks who are more familiar with this branch of literature, given the above, why is this a fruitful line of inquiry? Isn't this akin to stacking turtles on top of each other?