header-logo header-logo

AI, algorithmic discrimination & population bias

169508
Algorithmic discrimination is causing real harm to people across the globe. We need to work towards a cross-jurisdictional solution, writes Dr Sebastian Smart
  • Decision-making responsibilities once entrusted to humans are now often delegated to automated systems. This may improve efficiency, but algorithmic discrimination is on the rise, leading to global concerns about fairness, equality and justice.
  • This complex area is complicated further by the diverse approaches taken by jurisdictions around the world. There is an urgent need for universally accepted definitions and frameworks.

Algorithmic discrimination has become increasingly prevalent. It is growingly common to observe cases of bias and disparity arising from algorithmic decision-making. These processes often rely on complex algorithms found in systems that impact aspects of our lives, ranging from social media algorithms to credit scoring methods, job recruitment procedures and even law enforcement practices.

The significance of understanding algorithmic discrimination is amplified in today’s digital age; decision-making responsibilities, once entrusted solely to humans, are now frequently delegated to automated systems. While algorithms offer advantages,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll