147 research outputs found
Matching Code and Law: Achieving Algorithmic Fairness with Optimal Transport
Increasingly, discrimination by algorithms is perceived as a societal and
legal problem. As a response, a number of criteria for implementing algorithmic
fairness in machine learning have been developed in the literature. This paper
proposes the Continuous Fairness Algorithm (CFA) which enables a
continuous interpolation between different fairness definitions. More
specifically, we make three main contributions to the existing literature.
First, our approach allows the decision maker to continuously vary between
specific concepts of individual and group fairness. As a consequence, the
algorithm enables the decision maker to adopt intermediate ``worldviews'' on
the degree of discrimination encoded in algorithmic processes, adding nuance to
the extreme cases of ``we're all equal'' (WAE) and ``what you see is what you
get'' (WYSIWYG) proposed so far in the literature. Second, we use optimal
transport theory, and specifically the concept of the barycenter, to maximize
decision maker utility under the chosen fairness constraints. Third, the
algorithm is able to handle cases of intersectionality, i.e., of
multi-dimensional discrimination of certain groups on grounds of several
criteria. We discuss three main examples (credit applications; college
admissions; insurance contracts) and map out the legal and policy implications
of our approach. The explicit formalization of the trade-off between individual
and group fairness allows this post-processing approach to be tailored to
different situational contexts in which one or the other fairness criterion may
take precedence. Finally, we evaluate our model experimentally.Comment: Vastly extended new version, now including computational experiment
The European AI Liability Directives -- Critique of a Half-Hearted Approach and Lessons for the Future
As ChatGPT et al. conquer the world, the optimal liability framework for AI
systems remains an unsolved problem across the globe. In a much-anticipated
move, the European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European
approach to AI liability in September 2022: a novel AI Liability Directive and
a revision of the Product Liability Directive. They constitute the final
cornerstone of EU AI regulation. Crucially, the liability proposals and the EU
AI Act are inherently intertwined: the latter does not contain any individual
rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on
AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a
Brussels Effect in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and
beyond.
This paper makes three novel contributions. First, it examines in detail the
Commission proposals and shows that, while making steps in the right direction,
they ultimately represent a half-hearted approach: if enacted as foreseen, AI
liability in the EU will primarily rest on disclosure of evidence mechanisms
and a set of narrowly defined presumptions concerning fault, defectiveness and
causality. Hence, second, the article suggests amendments, which are collected
in an Annex at the end of the paper. Third, based on an analysis of the key
risks AI poses, the final part of the paper maps out a road for the future of
AI liability and regulation, in the EU and beyond. This includes: a
comprehensive framework for AI liability; provisions to support innovation; an
extension to non-discrimination/algorithmic fairness, as well as explainable
AI; and sustainability. I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via
sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects
in the liability regime. In this way, the law may help spur not only fair AI
and XAI, but potentially also sustainable AI (SAI).Comment: under peer-review; contains 3 Table
AI Regulation in Europe: From the AI Act to Future Regulatory Challenges
This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion on AI regulation in the
European Union, contrasting it with the more sectoral and self-regulatory
approach in the UK. It argues for a hybrid regulatory strategy that combines
elements from both philosophies, emphasizing the need for agility and safe
harbors to ease compliance. The paper examines the AI Act as a pioneering
legislative effort to address the multifaceted challenges posed by AI,
asserting that, while the Act is a step in the right direction, it has
shortcomings that could hinder the advancement of AI technologies. The paper
also anticipates upcoming regulatory challenges, such as the management of
toxic content, environmental concerns, and hybrid threats. It advocates for
immediate action to create protocols for regulated access to high-performance,
potentially open-source AI systems. Although the AI Act is a significant
legislative milestone, it needs additional refinement and global collaboration
for the effective governance of rapidly evolving AI technologies.Comment: Final version forthcoming in: Ifeoma Ajunwa & Jeremias Adams-Prassl
(eds), Oxford Handbook of Algorithmic Governance and the Law, Oxford
University Press, 202
Sustainable AI Regulation
This paper suggests that AI regulation needs a shift from trustworthiness to
sustainability. With the carbon footprint of large generative AI models like
ChatGPT or GPT-4 adding urgency to this goal, the paper develops a roadmap to
make AI, and technology more broadly, environmentally sustainable. It explores
two key dimensions: legal instruments to make AI greener; and methods to render
AI regulation more sustainable. Concerning the former, transparency mechanisms,
such as the disclosure of the GHG footprint under Article 11 AI Act, could be a
first step. However, given the well-known limitations of disclosure, regulation
needs to go beyond transparency. Hence, I propose a mix of co-regulation
strategies; sustainability by design; restrictions on training data; and
consumption caps. This regulatory toolkit may then, in a second step, serve as
a blueprint for other information technologies and infrastructures facing
significant sustainability challenges due to their high GHG emissions, e.g.:
blockchain; metaverse applications; and data centers. The second dimension
consists in efforts to render AI regulation, and by implication the law itself,
more sustainable. Certain rights we have come to take for granted, such as the
right to erasure (Article 17 GDPR), may have to be limited due to
sustainability considerations. For example, the subjective right to erasure, in
some situations, has to be balanced against the collective interest in
mitigating climate change. The paper formulates guidelines to strike this
balance equitably, discusses specific use cases, and identifies doctrinal legal
methods for incorporating such a "sustainability limitation" into existing
(e.g., Art. 17(3) GDPR) and future law (e.g., AI Act). Ultimately, law,
computer science and sustainability studies need to team up to effectively
address the dual large-scale transformations of digitization and
sustainability.Comment: Privacy Law Scholars Conference 202
UberPop, UberBlack, and the regulation of digital platforms after the Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi judgment of the CJEU: judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 20 December 2017, Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi (C-434/15)
The case concerning a smartphone transport application provided by Uber, decided by the Grand Chamber of the CJEU on 20 December 2017, has the potential to reshape the regulation of contracting in the digital economy. More precisely, it specifies the rules applicable to online platforms serving as intermediaries between parties demanding and offering services. The criteria the CJEU uses to reach its conclusion are likely to have repercussions far beyond the area of transportation applications. This Case Note starts by presenting the facts of the case and the legal background of those EU law provisions potentially governing digital intermediaries. It then explores the criteria the Court uses to distinguish Uber from simple intermediation services, followed by a discussion and critique of these criteria. In the last two sections, it maps out the implications of the judgment for the platform economy, and suggests that a decisive impetus of the judgment should be a thorough review of regulations governing the provision of services in the EU
Standing on Shaky Ground: Americans' Experiences With Economic Insecurity
Based on 2009 Surveys of Economic Risk Perceptions and Insecurity, examines Americans' experience of economic insecurity, such as frequency and duration, buffers against hardship, and concerns by income, family structure, race/ethnicity, and education
Digital Technology as a Challenge to European Contract Law
Offering an overview of the interactions between digital technologies and contract law, we identify three pillars in this architecture: the regulatory framework; digital interventions over the life cycle of the contract; and digital objects of contracting. The regulatory framework, which itself may draw on digital technology to effectively pursue its ends, shapes, and is shaped by, the other two pillars. More specifically, on the one hand, we show how four key technologies – digital platforms, Big Data analytics, artificial intelligence, and blockchain – are being used at different stages of the contractual process (from the screening for contractual partners to formation, enforcement and interpretation) and engender novel market dynamics that, in many instances, necessitate regulatory responses. On the other hand, digitally facilitated contracting increasingly relates to digital content as the object of the contract; however, while this area has notably been the subject of the proposed Directive on Contracts for the Supply of Digital Content and thus has received some first ‘European structure’, we argue that a number of important blind spots remain that fail to be addressed by the directive. All in all, the use of digital technology in contracting will likely reinforce an adaptive, relational view and practice of contracting. This increased fluidity engenders a vast potential for preference-conforming, time-sensitive contracts; however, to the extent that it also mirrors novel asymmetries of information and power, the ordering mechanisms of the law may simultaneously be more needed than ever.Peer Reviewe
European Union Litigation
This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.This article provides an overview of cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning contract law. The present issue covers the period between the beginning of July 2019 and the end of December 2019.Peer Reviewe
- …