Artificial Intelligence Risks and Algorithmic Regulation

Abstract

In this editorial article, we aim to map out the central features of algorithmic regulation and its conceptual basis – seeking to bring together different strands of the literature relating to the topic that have often remained apart. We then reflect on the ways through which algorithmic law could evolve to address the challenges of artificial intelligence in the legal domain, particularly by examining the potential of applying a “prudential” test in order to determine whether automated decision-making systems are suitable to adequately support legal decision-making.

Law-Jobs in the Algorithmic Society

“…From this perspective, when the relevant social actors identified as founders, entrepreneurs and architects of the algorithmic society promote the development of magna cartas, Supreme Courts, algorithmic systems and regulation, we may acknowledge the emergence of new legal phenomena in the cyberspace, social networks and virtual realities (Fortes et al, 2022). We also consider the existence of a mathematical turn in law, as mathematical formulas, quantitative methods and statistical analysis are currently a decisive part of what contemporary law is and the tasks performed by law-jobs in contemporary societies (Restrepo Amariles, 2015;2017a;2017b;Fortes, 2015;Restrepo Amariles and McLachlan, 2017).…”

“…The need to adjudicate new forms of high-volume disputes involving algorithmssuch as in algorithmic collusion (Ezrachi, 2016), content moderation (Cavaliere and Romeo, 2022) and market abuse in algorithmic trading (Schmidt-Kessen et al, 2022) and the development of algorithm-supported dispute resolution (Lodder and Zeleznikow, 2012) illustrate the challenges of this law-job. The rise of new dispute resolution methods, such as predictive analytics, and the role of new actors in the adjudication disputes, from LegalTechs to market-places and social networks (Cavaliere and Romeo, 2022;Fortes et al, 2022), reveal a new agenda for this law-job that involves the adoption of algorithms as a new craft in law's toolbox.…”

Law-jobs in the algorithmic society

“…From this perspective, when the relevant social actors identified as founders, entrepreneurs and architects of the algorithmic society promote the development of magna cartas, Supreme Courts, algorithmic systems and regulation, we may acknowledge the emergence of new legal phenomena in the cyberspace, social networks and virtual realities (Fortes et al, 2022). We also consider the existence of a mathematical turn in law, as mathematical formulas, quantitative methods and statistical analysis are currently a decisive part of what contemporary law is and the tasks performed by law-jobs in contemporary societies (Restrepo Amariles, 2015;2017a;2017b;Fortes, 2015;Restrepo Amariles and McLachlan, 2017).…”

“…The need to adjudicate new forms of high-volume disputes involving algorithmssuch as in algorithmic collusion (Ezrachi, 2016), content moderation (Cavaliere and Romeo, 2022) and market abuse in algorithmic trading (Schmidt-Kessen et al, 2022) and the development of algorithm-supported dispute resolution (Lodder and Zeleznikow, 2012) illustrate the challenges of this law-job. The rise of new dispute resolution methods, such as predictive analytics, and the role of new actors in the adjudication disputes, from LegalTechs to market-places and social networks (Cavaliere and Romeo, 2022;Fortes et al, 2022), reveal a new agenda for this law-job that involves the adoption of algorithms as a new craft in law's toolbox.…”

What Should we Reasonably Expect from Artificial Intelligence?

“…New Weapons, Proven Precedent -Elements of and Models for a Treaty on Killer Robots. https://www.hrw.org/ report/2020/10/20/new-weapons-proven-precedent/elements-and-models-treaty-killer-robots).76 «В этом смысле ИИ будет обучен выполнению конкретной задачи по обеспечению принятия судебных решений»(Fortes et al, 2022).77 «В данной статье рассматривается серия мысленных экспериментов, которые постулируют существование "права на основе искусственного интеллекта. Такая правовая система определяется как система, обладающая тремя функциональными возможностями: 1.…”