Legal contestation of artificial intelligence-related decision-making in the United Kingdom: reflections for policy

Q1 Social Sciences
Archie Drake, P. Keller, Irene Pietropaoli, Anuj Puri, Spyros M. Maniatis, Joe Tomlinson, Jack Maxwell, P. Fussey, C. Pagliari, Hannah Smethurst, L. Edwards, Sir William Blair
{"title":"Legal contestation of artificial intelligence-related decision-making in the United Kingdom: reflections for policy","authors":"Archie Drake, P. Keller, Irene Pietropaoli, Anuj Puri, Spyros M. Maniatis, Joe Tomlinson, Jack Maxwell, P. Fussey, C. Pagliari, Hannah Smethurst, L. Edwards, Sir William Blair","doi":"10.1080/13600869.2021.1999075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper considers legal contestation in the UK as a source of useful reflections for AI policy. The government has published a ‘National AI Strategy’, but it is unclear how effective this will be given doubts about levels of public trust. One key concern is the UK’s apparent ‘side-lining’ of the law. A series of events were convened to investigate critical legal perspectives on the issues, culminating in an expert workshop addressing five sectors. Participants discussed AI in the context of wider trends towards automated decision-making (ADM). A recent proliferation in legal actions is expected to continue. The discussions illuminated the various ways in which individual examples connect systematically to developments in governance and broader ‘AI-related decision-making’, particularly due to chronic problems with transparency and awareness. This provides a fresh and current insight into the perspectives of key groups advancing criticisms relevant to policy in this area. Policymakers’ neglect of the law and legal processes is contributing to quality issues with recent practical ADM implementation in the UK. Strong signals are now required to switch back from the vicious cycle of increasing mistrust to an approach capable of generating public trust. Suggestions are summarised for consideration by policymakers.","PeriodicalId":53660,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law, Computers and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law, Computers and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2021.1999075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper considers legal contestation in the UK as a source of useful reflections for AI policy. The government has published a ‘National AI Strategy’, but it is unclear how effective this will be given doubts about levels of public trust. One key concern is the UK’s apparent ‘side-lining’ of the law. A series of events were convened to investigate critical legal perspectives on the issues, culminating in an expert workshop addressing five sectors. Participants discussed AI in the context of wider trends towards automated decision-making (ADM). A recent proliferation in legal actions is expected to continue. The discussions illuminated the various ways in which individual examples connect systematically to developments in governance and broader ‘AI-related decision-making’, particularly due to chronic problems with transparency and awareness. This provides a fresh and current insight into the perspectives of key groups advancing criticisms relevant to policy in this area. Policymakers’ neglect of the law and legal processes is contributing to quality issues with recent practical ADM implementation in the UK. Strong signals are now required to switch back from the vicious cycle of increasing mistrust to an approach capable of generating public trust. Suggestions are summarised for consideration by policymakers.
英国人工智能相关决策的法律争论:对政策的反思
本文将英国的法律纠纷视为人工智能政策的有益反思来源。政府已经发布了一项“国家人工智能战略”,但由于对公众信任程度的怀疑,目前尚不清楚该战略的效果如何。一个关键的担忧是英国明显的“边缘化”法律。召开了一系列活动来调查对这些问题的关键法律观点,最后召开了一个涉及五个部门的专家讲习班。与会者在更广泛的自动化决策(ADM)趋势的背景下讨论了人工智能。最近法律诉讼的激增预计将继续下去。讨论阐明了将个别例子系统地与治理和更广泛的“人工智能相关决策”的发展联系起来的各种方式,特别是由于透明度和意识方面的长期问题。这为提出与该领域政策有关的批评的关键团体的观点提供了新的和最新的见解。政策制定者对法律和法律程序的忽视导致了最近在英国实际实施ADM的质量问题。现在需要发出强有力的信号,以摆脱日益不信任的恶性循环,转而采取能够产生公众信任的办法。建议被总结供决策者考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信