Algorithmic Justice (Timestamps)

Abstract
Conversations about algorithms and fairness can overlook the bifurcation of justice. Whilst distributive justice is integral to accountability for algorithmic bias and related harms, without procedural justice and ‘voice’, defined as consent, transparency, and a right to be heard, algorithmic decisions will fail to find legitimacy and acceptance. Fairness metrics respond better to distributive justice because algorithmic bias is primarily framed in such terms. The potential of AI Ethics Guidelines and formal regulation to address voice is compromised by ambiguous concepts of fairness, rigidity, and competing market demands. The scope of a right to a fair trial limits the potential of human rights impact assessments to address procedural rights. Jurisdictional issues of reviewability, interpretation, and applicability challenge judicial review. In examining the capacity of these accountability mechanisms to ensure ‘voice’, a ‘procedural gap’ emerges in algorithmic decision-making.

Niamh Kinchin, “Voiceless”: the procedural gap in algorithmic justice, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Volume 32, Issue 1, 2024, eaae024, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaae024

TMESSTAMPS:
00:00:00 - Algorithmic Justice
00:00:15 - Abstract
00:01:16 - Introduction
00:03:55 - Framing algorithmic justice
00:09:19 - Finding voice in algorithmic justice
00:15:04 - Fairness metrics
00:28:06 - Regulation
00:28:52 - AI ethics guidelines
00:38:04 - Formal regulation
00:55:08 - Human rights
01:14:15 - Judicial review - Australia: scope and reviewability after Pintarich
01:23:18 - Europe: the chilling effect of the AI act
01:30:31 - US: the due process clause and the Spectre of Loomis
01:37:43 - Conclusion

- #Australia Safe and responsible AI in Australia discussion paper’ 2024
- #China - ‘The Ethical Norms for the New Generation Artificial Intelligence’ (China 2021)
- #Dubai ‘AI Ethics Guidelines’ (Dubai) (Dubai Guidelines)
- European Parliament- Safe and responsible AI in Australia discussion paper’ 2020
- #Europe - Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law Council of Europe Treaty Series - No. [225] [Vilnius,
- #ILO International Labour Organization (ILO), ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Wor
- INTERPOL, Principles for Responsible AI Innovation
- #Japan ‘Social Principles of Human-Centric AI’ (Japan 2019)
- ‘Montreal Declaration for a Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence’ (Canada 2018)
- OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence
- ‘Principles for the Development, Deployment, and Use of Generative AI Technologies’ (Association of Computing Machinery 27 June 2023
- Singapore ‘Advisory Guidelines on the use of Personal Data in AI Recommendation and Decision Systems’
- UN International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (ICCPR)
- #USA Congress of the United States, ‘Artificial Intelligence Research, Innovation, and Accountability Bill. 2023
#law #openaccess #iphones #communicationlaw #AI

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.