THE JUDICIAL DEMAND FOR EXPLAINABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

A recurrent concern about machine learning algorithms is that they operate as “black boxes,” making it difficult to identify how and why the algorithms reach particular decisions, recommendations, or predictions. Yet judges are confronting machine learning algorithms with increasing frequency, inclu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Columbia law review Vol. 119; no. 7; pp. 1829 - 1850
Main Author: Deeks, Ashley
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Columbia Law Review Association, Inc 01.11.2019
Subjects:
Algorithms
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
COMMON LAW
DESIGNS
ESSAYS
Judicial power
JUDICIARY
Machine learning
UNITED STATES
ISSN:0010-1958, 1945-2268
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A recurrent concern about machine learning algorithms is that they operate as “black boxes,” making it difficult to identify how and why the algorithms reach particular decisions, recommendations, or predictions. Yet judges are confronting machine learning algorithms with increasing frequency, including in criminal, administrative, and civil cases. This Essay argues that judges should demand explanations for these algorithmic outcomes. One way to address the “black box” problem is to design systems that explain how the algorithms reach their conclusions or predictions. If and as judges demand these explanations, they will play a seminal role in shaping the nature and form of “explainable AI” (xAI). Using the tools of the common law, courts can develop what xAI should mean in different legal contexts. There are advantages to having courts to play this role: Judicial reasoning that builds from the bottom up, using case-by-case consideration of the facts to produce nuanced decisions, is a pragmatic way to develop rules for xAI. Further, courts are likely to stimulate the production of different forms of xAI that are responsive to distinct legal settings and audiences. More generally, we should favor the greater involvement of public actors in shaping xAI, which to date has largely been left in private hands.
Bibliography:2020-01-08T15:30:45+11:00
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW, Vol. 119, No. 7, Nov 2019: 1829-1850
Informit, Melbourne (Vic)
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW, Vol. 119, No. 7, Nov 2019, 1829-1850
ISSN:0010-1958
1945-2268