What’s in the Box? The Legal Requirement to Explain Computationally Aided Decision-Making in Public Administration

Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapportBidrag til bog/antologiForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

What’s in the Box? The Legal Requirement to Explain Computationally Aided Decision-Making in Public Administration. / Olsen, Henrik Palmer; Slosser, Jacob Livingston; Hildebrandt, Thomas Troels.

Constitutional Challenges in the Algorithmic Society. Cambridge University Press, 2021. s. 219-235.

Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapportBidrag til bog/antologiForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Olsen, HP, Slosser, JL & Hildebrandt, TT 2021, What’s in the Box? The Legal Requirement to Explain Computationally Aided Decision-Making in Public Administration. i Constitutional Challenges in the Algorithmic Society. Cambridge University Press, s. 219-235.

APA

Olsen, H. P., Slosser, J. L., & Hildebrandt, T. T. (2021). What’s in the Box? The Legal Requirement to Explain Computationally Aided Decision-Making in Public Administration. I Constitutional Challenges in the Algorithmic Society (s. 219-235). Cambridge University Press.

Vancouver

Olsen HP, Slosser JL, Hildebrandt TT. What’s in the Box? The Legal Requirement to Explain Computationally Aided Decision-Making in Public Administration. I Constitutional Challenges in the Algorithmic Society. Cambridge University Press. 2021. s. 219-235

Author

Olsen, Henrik Palmer ; Slosser, Jacob Livingston ; Hildebrandt, Thomas Troels. / What’s in the Box? The Legal Requirement to Explain Computationally Aided Decision-Making in Public Administration. Constitutional Challenges in the Algorithmic Society. Cambridge University Press, 2021. s. 219-235

Bibtex

@inbook{babed18e4f8a4f3598ab14d675fdc9eb,
title = "What{\textquoteright}s in the Box? The Legal Requirement to Explain Computationally Aided Decision-Making in Public Administration",
abstract = "Every day, millions of administrative decisions take place in the public sector: building permits, land use, tax deductions, social welfare support, and access to healthcare, etc. When such decisions affect the rights and duties of individual citizens and/or businesses, they must meet the requirements set out in administrative law. Of those is the requirement that the body responsible for the decision must provide an explanation of the decision to the recipient. As many administrative decisions are being considered for automation through algorithmic decision-making (ADM) systems, it raises questions about what kind of explanations they need to provide. Fearing the opaqueness of the dreaded black box of these ADM systems, countless ethical guidelines have been produced, often of a very general character. Rather than adding yet another ethical consideration to what in our view is an already overcrowded ethics-based literature, we focus on a concrete legal approach, and ask: what does the legal requirement to explain a decision in public administration actually entail in regards to both human and computer-aided decision-making? We argue that, instead of pursuing a new approach to explanation, retaining the existing standard (the human standard) for explanation already enshrined in administrative law will be more meaningful and safe. To add to this we introduce what we call an {\textquoteleft}administrative Turing test{\textquoteright} which could be used to continually validate and strengthen computationally assisted decision-making, providing a benchmark on which future applications of ADM can be measured.",
author = "Olsen, {Henrik Palmer} and Slosser, {Jacob Livingston} and Hildebrandt, {Thomas Troels}",
year = "2021",
language = "English",
pages = "219--235",
booktitle = "Constitutional Challenges in the Algorithmic Society",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - What’s in the Box? The Legal Requirement to Explain Computationally Aided Decision-Making in Public Administration

AU - Olsen, Henrik Palmer

AU - Slosser, Jacob Livingston

AU - Hildebrandt, Thomas Troels

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - Every day, millions of administrative decisions take place in the public sector: building permits, land use, tax deductions, social welfare support, and access to healthcare, etc. When such decisions affect the rights and duties of individual citizens and/or businesses, they must meet the requirements set out in administrative law. Of those is the requirement that the body responsible for the decision must provide an explanation of the decision to the recipient. As many administrative decisions are being considered for automation through algorithmic decision-making (ADM) systems, it raises questions about what kind of explanations they need to provide. Fearing the opaqueness of the dreaded black box of these ADM systems, countless ethical guidelines have been produced, often of a very general character. Rather than adding yet another ethical consideration to what in our view is an already overcrowded ethics-based literature, we focus on a concrete legal approach, and ask: what does the legal requirement to explain a decision in public administration actually entail in regards to both human and computer-aided decision-making? We argue that, instead of pursuing a new approach to explanation, retaining the existing standard (the human standard) for explanation already enshrined in administrative law will be more meaningful and safe. To add to this we introduce what we call an ‘administrative Turing test’ which could be used to continually validate and strengthen computationally assisted decision-making, providing a benchmark on which future applications of ADM can be measured.

AB - Every day, millions of administrative decisions take place in the public sector: building permits, land use, tax deductions, social welfare support, and access to healthcare, etc. When such decisions affect the rights and duties of individual citizens and/or businesses, they must meet the requirements set out in administrative law. Of those is the requirement that the body responsible for the decision must provide an explanation of the decision to the recipient. As many administrative decisions are being considered for automation through algorithmic decision-making (ADM) systems, it raises questions about what kind of explanations they need to provide. Fearing the opaqueness of the dreaded black box of these ADM systems, countless ethical guidelines have been produced, often of a very general character. Rather than adding yet another ethical consideration to what in our view is an already overcrowded ethics-based literature, we focus on a concrete legal approach, and ask: what does the legal requirement to explain a decision in public administration actually entail in regards to both human and computer-aided decision-making? We argue that, instead of pursuing a new approach to explanation, retaining the existing standard (the human standard) for explanation already enshrined in administrative law will be more meaningful and safe. To add to this we introduce what we call an ‘administrative Turing test’ which could be used to continually validate and strengthen computationally assisted decision-making, providing a benchmark on which future applications of ADM can be measured.

M3 - Book chapter

SP - 219

EP - 235

BT - Constitutional Challenges in the Algorithmic Society

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -

ID: 240058298