Just as with self-driving cars, you have to look at the counterfactual. We don't have an interpretable audit trail for the decisions made by human employees eit

Just as with self-driving cars, you have to look at the counterfactual. We don't have an interpretable audit trail for the decisions made by human employees either. So under the status quo, what happens in the case of an aberrant or problematic decision and how does society cope with this lack of interpretability? We try to piece together a plausible, retrospective narrative by looking at fact patterns and taking into account the education, experience, actions, explanations, and rationalizations of other humans. (Trusting these accounts is further complicated by human traits such as self-interest, emotion, and cognitive biases.) There exist entire professional specialties devoted to this problem (litigation, internal investigations, police detectives, accident boards) who spend a lot of time on this. Even so, much of the time we still don't really know why exactly people made the decisions they did. This inconvenient fact does not stop us from employing humans, and society has not collapsed under the weight of the liability issues.