“Just” Algorithms: Justification (Beyond Explanation) of Automated Decisions Under the General Data Protection Regulation

This paper argues that if we want a sustainable environment of desirable AI systems, we should aim not only at transparent, explainable, fair, lawful, and accountable algorithms, but we also should seek for “just” algorithms, that is, automated decision-making systems that include all the above-mentioned qualities (transparency, explainability, fairness, lawfulness, and accountability). This is possible through a practical “justification” statement and process (eventually derived from algorithmic impact assessment) through which the data controller proves, in practical ways, why the AI system is not unfair, not discriminatory, not obscure, not unlawful, etc. In other words, this justification (eventually derived from data protection impact assessment on the AI system) proves the legality of the system with respect to all data protection principles (fairness, lawfulness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy, storage limitation, integrity, and accountability). All these principles are necessary components of a broader concept of just algorithmic decision-making and is already required by the GDPR, in particular considering: the data protection principles (Article 5), the need to enable (meaningful) contestations of automated decisions (Article 22) and the need to assess the AI system necessity, proportionality and legality under the Data Protection Impact Assessment model framework. (Article 35).

The Moral and Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence (Present Dilemmas and Future Challenges)

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems raises dilemmas regarding their moral and legal status. Can artificial intelligence possess moral status (significance)? And under what conditions? Can one speak of the dignity of artificial intelligence as the basis of its moral status? According to some authors, if there are entities who have the capacities on which the dignity of human beings is based, they would also possess intrinsic dignity. If dignity is not an exclusive feature of human beings, such status also could be recognised by artificial intelligence entities. The first part of the paper deals with the problem of moral status of artificial intelligence and the conditions that must be fulfilled for such a status to be recognised. A precondition for the existence of moral status of artificial intelligence is its ability to make autonomous decisions. This part of the paper considers whether developing autonomous AI is justified, or, as some authors suggest, the creation of AI agents capable of autonomous action should be avoided. The recognition of the moral status of artificial intelligence would reflect on its legal status. The second part of the paper deals with the question of justifiability of ascribing legal personhood to the AI agents. Under what conditions would recognition of legal personhood by the artificial intelligence be justified and should its legal subjectivity be recognised in full scope or only partially (by ascribing to the AI agents a “halfway-status,” as some authors suggest)? The current state of the legal regulation of artificial intelligence will be observed as well.

Reflections on the Use of AI in the Legal Domain

This paper examines the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Law and offers some broad reflections on its current state. First, the paper introduces the concept of AI, paying particular attention to the distinction between hard and soft AI. Next, it considers how AI can be used to support (or replace!) legal work and legal reasoning. The paper goes on to explore applications of AI in the legal domain and concludes with some critical reflections on the use of AI in the legal context.

The Future of Judging: Algorithms in the Courtroom

These keynote lecture notes explore the potential and limitations of using algorithms and machine learning tools in the courtroom. It identifies different areas in which algorithms would be suitable for legal decision-making and areas in which human judgments should be preserved.

Homo ex machina. Artificial Intelligence in a Brave New World—A Glimpse from Europe

There is no area of human activity that would function today without the involvement of AI technologies. AI, a driving force of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, penetrates modern human life with ever-increasing intensity. As it is claimed, it brings about decision-making efficiency and performance accuracy that has never existed before. At the same time, artificial intelligence creates far-reaching dangers to almost every aspect of the modern world. From the legal point of view, the most eminent ones include: the bias stemming from the inherited historical data that AI tends to repeat and multiply, the problem of the lack of transparency (the “black-box society”) that makes it impossible for a human being to understand how AI arrived at a decision, and the elimination of the human being from the decision-making process, which rises the issue of appropriateness and legitimacy. AI can only be developed when sufficient amount of data is available, and hence the article elaborates on the fundamental role that data plays for the modern world, and how transnational corporations set global rules in relation to collection and access to data in a process that lacks democratic accountability and questions the position of states. The article ends with presenting the UE attempts to address the issues that arise in relation to the unrestricted access to data, invasion of privacy and threats posed by artificial intelligence. It also elaborates on the prominent position that the artificial intelligence holds on the EU political agenda and presents political and legislative actions undertaken by the European Union in this regard.

Morality in the AI World

AIs’ presence in and influence on human life is growing. AIs are seen more and more as autonomously acting agents, which creates a challenge to build ethics into their design. This paper defends the thesis that we need to equip AI with artificial conscience to make them capable of wise judgements. An argument is built in three steps. First, the concept of decision is presented, and second, the Asilomar Principles for AI development are analysed. It is then shown that to meet those principles AI needs the capability of passing moral judgements on right and wrong, of following that judgement, and of passing a meta-judgement on the correctness of a given moral judgement, which is a role of conscience. In classical philosophy, the ability to discover right and wrong and to stick to one's judgement of what is right action in given circumstances is called practical wisdom. The conclusion is that we should equip AI with artificial wisdom. Some problems stemming from ascribing moral agency to AIs are also indicated.