Explaining decisions one conversation at a time: Opportunities and risks of LLMs as explainability assistants

Modern AI systems increasingly rely on opaque, highly complex models whose inner workings remain inaccessible even to experts. This opacity creates challenges for trust, accountability, and compliance with emerging regulatory expectations such as the “right to an explanation”. While traditional explainability methods—feature attributions, counterfactuals, surrogate models—and interpretable model classes provide valuable insights for engineers, they often fall short of delivering the contextual, conversational explanations that real users expect. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising new avenue for explanation due to their ability to engage interactively, adapt to user needs, and translate technical outputs into more accessible reasoning. However, their tendencies toward hallucination, conflict avoidance, and oversimplification introduce serious risks when used as explanatory agents. This paper analyzes these opportunities and limitations, examines verification strategies for ensuring explanation fidelity, and situates LLM-generated explanations within broader concerns about public trust. The paper concludes by outlining best practices and future research directions for building robust, verifiable, and human-aligned explanation systems.