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

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Property litigation practice strengthened by partner hire

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

International arbitration team specialist joins the team

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll