Predictability, AI, And Judicial Futurism: Why Robots Will Run The Law And Textualists Will Like It

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jack Kieffaber: “The question isn’t whether machines are going to replace judges and lawyers—they are. The question is whether that’s a good thing. If you’re a textualist, you have to answer yes. But you won’t—which means you’re not a textualist. Sorry.

Hypothetical: The year is 2030.  AI has far eclipsed the median federal jurist as a textual interpreter. A new country is founded; it’s a democratic republic that uses human legislators to write laws and programs a state-sponsored Large Language Model called “Judge.AI” to apply those laws to facts. The model makes judicial decisions as to conduct on the back end, but can also provide advisory opinions on the front end; if a citizen types in his desired action and hits “enter,” Judge.AI will tell him, ex ante, exactly what it would decide ex post if the citizen were to perform the action and be prosecuted. The primary result is perfect predictability; secondary results include the abolition of case law, the death of common law, and the replacement of all judges—indeed, all lawyers—by a single machine. Don’t fight the hypothetical, assume it works. This article poses the question:  Is that a utopia or a dystopia?

If you answer dystopia, you cannot be a textualist. Part I of this article establishes why:  Because predictability is textualism’s only lodestar, and Judge.AI is substantially more predictable than any regime operating today. Part II-A dispatches rebuttals premised on positive nuances of the American system; such rebuttals forget that my hypothetical presumes a new nation and take for granted how much of our nation’s founding was premised on mitigating exactly the kinds of human error that Judge.AI would eliminate. And Part II-B dispatches normative rebuttals, which ultimately amount to moral arguments about objective good—which are none of the textualist’s business. 

When the dust clears, you have only two choices: You’re a moralist, or you’re a formalist. If you’re the former, you’ll need a complete account of the objective good—which has evaded man for his entire existence. If you’re the latter, you should relish the fast-approaching day when all laws and all lawyers are usurped by a tin box.  But you’re going to say you’re something in between. And you’re not…(More)”

The Next Phase of the Data Economy: Economic & Technological Perspectives

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jad Esber et al: The data economy is poised to evolve toward a model centered on individual agency and control, moving us toward a world where data is more liquid across platforms and applications. In this future, products will either utilize existing personal data stores or create them when they don’t yet exist, empowering individuals to fully leverage their own data for various use cases.

The analysis begins by establishing a foundation for understanding data as an economic good and the dynamics of data markets. The article then investigates the concept of personal data stores, analyzing the historical challenges that have limited their widespread adoption. Building on this foundation, the article then considers how recent shifts in regulation, technology, consumer behavior, and market forces are converging to create new opportunities for a user-centric data economy. The article concludes by discussing potential frameworks for value creation and capture within this evolving paradigm, summarizing key insights and potential future directions for research, development, and policy.

We hope this article can help shape the thinking of scholars, policymakers, investors, and entrepreneurs, as new data ownership and privacy technologies emerge, and regulatory bodies around the world mandate open flows of data and new terms of service intended to empower users as well as small-to-medium–sized businesses…(More)”.

Online consent: how much do we need to know?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Bartlomiej Chomanski & Lode Lauwaert: “When you visit a website and click a button that says, ‘I agree to these terms’—do you really agree? Many scholars who consider this question (Solove 2013; Barocas & Nissenbaum 2014; Hull 2015; Pascalev 2017; Yeung 2017; Becker 2019; Zuboff 2019; Andreotta et al. 2022; Wolmarans and Vorhoeve 2022) would tend to answer ‘no’—or, at the very least, they would deem your agreement normatively deficient. The reasoning behind that conclusion is in large part driven by the claim that when most people click ‘I agree’ when visiting online websites and platforms, they do not really know what they are agreeing to. Their lack of knowledge about the privacy policy and other terms of the online agreements thus makes their consent problematic in morally salient ways.

We argue that this prevailing view is wrong. Uninformed consent to online terms and conditions (what we will call, for short, ‘online consent’) is less ethically problematic than many scholars suppose. Indeed, we argue that uninformed online consent preceded by the legitimate exercise of the right not to know (RNTK, to be explained below) is prima facie valid and does not appear normatively deficient in other ways, despite being uninformed.

The paper proceeds as follows. In Sect. 2, we make more precise the concept of online consent and summarize the case against it, as presented in the literature. In Sect. 3 we explain the arguments for the RNTK in bioethics and show that analogous reasoning leads to endorsing the RNTK in online contexts. In Sect. 4, we demonstrate that the appeal to the RNTK helps defuse the critics’ arguments against online consent. Section 5 concludes: online consent is valid (with caveats, to be explored in what follows)…(More)”

An Open Source Python Library for Anonymizing Sensitive Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Judith Sáinz-Pardo Díaz & Álvaro López García: “Open science is a fundamental pillar to promote scientific progress and collaboration, based on the principles of open data, open source and open access. However, the requirements for publishing and sharing open data are in many cases difficult to meet in compliance with strict data protection regulations. Consequently, researchers need to rely on proven methods that allow them to anonymize their data without sharing it with third parties. To this end, this paper presents the implementation of a Python library for the anonymization of sensitive tabular data. This framework provides users with a wide range of anonymization methods that can be applied on the given dataset, including the set of identifiers, quasi-identifiers, generalization hierarchies and allowed level of suppression, along with the sensitive attribute and the level of anonymity required. The library has been implemented following best practices for integration and continuous development, as well as the use of workflows to test code coverage based on unit and functional tests…(More)”.

Garden city: A synthetic dataset and sandbox environment for analysis of pre-processing algorithms for GPS human mobility data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst


Paper by Thomas H. Li, and Francisco Barreras: “Human mobility datasets have seen increasing adoption in the past decade, enabling diverse applications that leverage the high precision of measured trajectories relative to other human mobility datasets. However, there are concerns about whether the high sparsity in some commercial datasets can introduce errors due to lack of robustness in processing algorithms, which could compromise the validity of downstream results. The scarcity of “ground-truth” data makes it particularly challenging to evaluate and calibrate these algorithms. To overcome these limitations and allow for an intermediate form of validation of common processing algorithms, we propose a synthetic trajectory simulator and sandbox environment meant to replicate the features of commercial datasets that could cause errors in such algorithms, and which can be used to compare algorithm outputs with “ground-truth” synthetic trajectories and mobility diaries. Our code is open-source and is publicly available alongside tutorial notebooks and sample datasets generated with it….(More)”

Generative Agent Simulations of 1,000 People

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Joon Sung Park: “The promise of human behavioral simulation–general-purpose computational agents that replicate human behavior across domains–could enable broad applications in policymaking and social science. We present a novel agent architecture that simulates the attitudes and behaviors of 1,052 real individuals–applying large language models to qualitative interviews about their lives, then measuring how well these agents replicate the attitudes and behaviors of the individuals that they represent. The generative agents replicate participants’ responses on the General Social Survey 85% as accurately as participants replicate their own answers two weeks later, and perform comparably in predicting personality traits and outcomes in experimental replications. Our architecture reduces accuracy biases across racial and ideological groups compared to agents given demographic descriptions. This work provides a foundation for new tools that can help investigate individual and collective behavior…(More)”.

Why ‘open’ AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by David Gray Widder, Meredith Whittaker & Sarah Myers West: “This paper examines ‘open’ artificial intelligence (AI). Claims about ‘open’ AI often lack precision, frequently eliding scrutiny of substantial industry concentration in large-scale AI development and deployment, and often incorrectly applying understandings of ‘open’ imported from free and open-source software to AI systems. At present, powerful actors are seeking to shape policy using claims that ‘open’ AI is either beneficial to innovation and democracy, on the one hand, or detrimental to safety, on the other. When policy is being shaped, definitions matter. To add clarity to this debate, we examine the basis for claims of openness in AI, and offer a material analysis of what AI is and what ‘openness’ in AI can and cannot provide: examining models, data, labour, frameworks, and computational power. We highlight three main affordances of ‘open’ AI, namely transparency, reusability, and extensibility, and we observe that maximally ‘open’ AI allows some forms of oversight and experimentation on top of existing models. However, we find that openness alone does not perturb the concentration of power in AI. Just as many traditional open-source software projects were co-opted in various ways by large technology companies, we show how rhetoric around ‘open’ AI is frequently wielded in ways that exacerbate rather than reduce concentration of power in the AI sector…(More)”.

Flood data platform governance: Identifying the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Mahardika Fadmastuti, David Nowak, and Joep Crompvoets: “Data platform governance concept focuses on what decision must be made in order to reach the data platform mission and who makes that decision. The current study of the data platform governance framework is applied for the general platform ecosystem that values managing data as an organizational asset. However, flood data platforms are essential tools for enhancing the governance of flood risks and data platform governance in flood platforms is understudied. By adopting a data governance domains framework, this paper identifies the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences in public value(s) of flood data platforms. Empirically, we analyze 2 cases of flood data platforms to contrast the differences. Utilizing a qualitative approach, we combined web-observations and interviews to collect the data. Regardless of its approach, integrating flood data platform technologies into government authorities’ routines requires organizational commitment that drives value creation. The key differences between these approaches lies in the way the government sectors see this flood data platform technology. Empirically, our case study shows that the technological approach values improving capabilities and performances of the public authority while the socio-technical approach focuses more importantly providing engagement value with the public users. We further explore the differences of these approaches by analyzing each component of decision domains in the data governance framework…(More)”

Shifting Patterns of Social Interaction: Exploring the Social Life of Urban Spaces Through A.I.

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Arianna Salazar-Miranda, et al: “We analyze changes in pedestrian behavior over a 30-year period in four urban public spaces located in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. Building on William Whyte’s observational work from 1980, where he manually recorded pedestrian behaviors, we employ computer vision and deep learning techniques to examine video footage from 1979-80 and 2008-10. Our analysis measures changes in walking speed, lingering behavior, group sizes, and group formation. We find that the average walking speed has increased by 15%, while the time spent lingering in these spaces has halved across all locations. Although the percentage of pedestrians walking alone remained relatively stable (from 67% to 68%), the frequency of group encounters declined, indicating fewer interactions in public spaces. This shift suggests that urban residents increasingly view streets as thoroughfares rather than as social spaces, which has important implications for the role of public spaces in fostering social engagement…(More)”.

Privacy guarantees for personal mobility data in humanitarian response

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Nitin Kohli, Emily Aiken & Joshua E. Blumenstock: “Personal mobility data from mobile phones and other sensors are increasingly used to inform policymaking during pandemics, natural disasters, and other humanitarian crises. However, even aggregated mobility traces can reveal private information about individual movements to potentially malicious actors. This paper develops and tests an approach for releasing private mobility data, which provides formal guarantees over the privacy of the underlying subjects. Specifically, we (1) introduce an algorithm for constructing differentially private mobility matrices and derive privacy and accuracy bounds on this algorithm; (2) use real-world data from mobile phone operators in Afghanistan and Rwanda to show how this algorithm can enable the use of private mobility data in two high-stakes policy decisions: pandemic response and the distribution of humanitarian aid; and (3) discuss practical decisions that need to be made when implementing this approach, such as how to optimally balance privacy and accuracy. Taken together, these results can help enable the responsible use of private mobility data in humanitarian response…(More)”.