Slave to the Algorithm? Why a \u27Right to an Explanation\u27 Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For

Algorithms, particularly machine learning (ML) algorithms, are increasingly important to individuals’ lives, but have caused a range of concerns revolving mainly around unfairness, discrimination and opacity. Transparency in the form of a “right to an explanation” has emerged as a compellingly attractive remedy since it intuitively promises to open the algorithmic “black box” to promote challenge, redress, and hopefully heightened accountability. Amidst the general furore over algorithmic bias we describe, any remedy in a storm has looked attractive. However, we argue that a right to an explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is unlikely to present a complete remedy to algorithmic harms, particularly in some of the core “algorithmic war stories” that have shaped recent attitudes in this domain. Firstly, the law is restrictive, unclear, or even paradoxical concerning when any explanation-related right can be triggered. Secondly, even navigating this, the legal conception of explanations as “meaningful information about the logic of processing” may not be provided by the kind of ML “explanations” computer scientists have developed, partially in response. ML explanations are restricted both by the type of explanation sought, the dimensionality of the domain and the type of user seeking an explanation. However, “subject-centric explanations (SCEs) focussing on particular regions of a model around a query show promise for interactive exploration, as do explanation systems based on learning a model from outside rather than taking it apart (pedagogical versus decompositional explanations) in dodging developers\u27 worries of intellectual property or trade secrets disclosure. Based on our analysis, we fear that the search for a “right to an explanation” in the GDPR may be at best distracting, and at worst nurture a new kind of “transparency fallacy.” But all is not lost. We argue that other parts of the GDPR related (i) to the right to erasure ( right to be forgotten ) and the right to data portability; and (ii) to privacy by design, Data Protection Impact Assessments and certification and privacy seals, may have the seeds we can use to make algorithms more responsible, explicable, and human-centered

Between Liberalism and Theocracy

Our symposium conveners have focused us on “the relationship between liberalism and Christianity and their influence on American constitutionalism.” My objective is to complicate the relationship and reorient the influence. The focus of my inquiry is the liberty of conscience and its implications for the relationship between church and state. By approaching these issues through the lens of political theology (as distinct from either political or constitutional theory), hope to show that some of the most significant embodiments of conscience in the American colonies can neither be squared with an individualistic liberalism (as some on the left are prone to do) nor appropriated in the service of arguments that collapse the distinction between church and state (as some on the right are prone to do).I have in mind the political practices of Roger Williams and William Penn. Both are important figures in American political thought, both were known to many of the Founders, and both have drawn increased attention in recent scholarship. Both were also deeply theological thinkers—and their political practices cannot be given sense outside of the theological narratives within which those practices arose. My engagement with Williams and Penn is not confined to their arguments. Both men lived out their political practices in an era much different than our own. For this reason, identifying the theological context of Williams and Penn is only a first step. An equally important objective of this essay is to frame the ongoing relevance of their contributions. To this end, I link the theological politics of Williams and Penn to two contemporary theologians, John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas. I then suggest a way to connect the theological insights of Yoder and Hauerwas back to Williams and Penn through the work of constitutional scholar H. Jefferson Powell. This essay sketches these connections as a roadmap to future work. It is offered as an opening round of what I hope will evolve into an extended discussion about the contribution of these five theological thinkers to our understanding of religious freedom and the intersection of theology, political theory, and law

Are We Ready Yet?

Luke 2:1-7

The misunderstanding

Thesis (M.F.A)--Boston University N.B.:Page "C" missing. No copy 2