Cited by 114Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Law

How should we regulate artificial intelligence?

Open access
Reed, Chris·2018·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Abstract

Using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to replace human decision-making will inevitably create new risks whose consequences are unforeseeable. This naturally leads to calls for regulation, but I argue that it is too early to attempt a general system of AI regulation. Instead, we should work incrementally within the existing legal and regulatory schemes which allocate responsibility, and therefore liability, to persons. Where AI clearly creates risks which current law and regulation cannot deal with adequately, then new regulation will be needed. But in most cases, the current system can work effectively if the producers of AI technology can provide sufficient transparency in explaining how AI decisions are made. Transparency ex post can often be achieved through retrospective analysis of the technology's operations, and will be sufficient if the main goal is to compensate victims of incorrect decisions. Ex ante transparency is more challenging, and can limit the use of some AI technologies such as neural networks. It should only be demanded by regulation where the AI presents risks to fundamental rights, or where society needs reassuring that the technology can safely be used. Masterly inactivity in regulation is likely to achieve a better long-term solution than a rush to regulate in ignorance. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The growing ubiquity of algorithms in society: implications, impacts and innovations'.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsta.2017.0360

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Transparency in goals undergirds other safeguards around the protection of target populations and may help ensure compliance with relevant legislation and precedent.

    “Transparency in goals, thus, undergirds other safeguards around the protection of target populations and may help ensure compliance with relevant legislation and precedent (Reed 2018).”

    From How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors (2020) · cites this paper as Reed 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Al-shamasneh ARM, Obaidellah UHB. 2017 Artificial intelligence techniques for cancer detection and classification: review study. Eur. Sci. J. 13, 342-370. (doi:10.19044/esj. 2016.v13n3p342) · DOI
  2. Reed C. 2010 How to make bad law: lessons from cyberspace. Mod. Law Rev. 73, 903-932. (doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00838.x) · DOI
  3. Chien C-F, Chien L-F. 2008 Data mining to improve personnel selection and enhance human capital: a case study in high-technology industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 34, 280-290. (doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2006.09.003) · DOI
  4. Wachter S, Mittelstadt B, Russell C. In press. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: automated decisions and the GDPR. Harv. J. Law Technol. (doi:10.2139/ssrn. 3063289) · DOI · Paper page
  5. Darlington K. 2013 Aspects of intelligent systems explanation. Univ. J. Control Autom. 1, 40-51. (doi:10.13189/ujca.2013.010204) · DOI
  6. Robnik-Sikonja M, Kononenko I. 2008 Explaining classifications for individual instances. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 20, 589-600. (doi:10.1109/TKDE.2007.190734) · DOI
  7. Štrumbelj E, Kononenko I. 2008 Towards a model independent method for explaining classification for individual instances. In Data warehousing and knowledge discovery (eds I-Y Song, J Eder, TM Nguyen), pp. 1-12. Berlin, Germany: Springer. (doi:10.1007/978-3- 540-85836-2_26) · DOI
  8. Goodman B, Seth Flaxman S. 2016 European union regulations on algorithmic decision- making and a 'right to explanation'. In ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2016), New York, NY, 23 June. (https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08813) · arXiv
  9. Karaminou D, Millard C. 2016 Machine learning with personal data. In MCCRC Symp., Cambridge, UK, 8-9 September. See https://ssrn.com/abstract=2865811.
  10. Bonnefon J-F, Shariff A, Rahwan I. 2016 The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352, 1573. (doi:10.1126/science.aaf2654) · DOI · Paper page
  11. Reed C, Kennedy E, Silva SN. 2016 Responsibility, autonomy and accountability: legal liability for machine learning, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 243/2016. See https://ssrn.com/abstract=2853462.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reed, C.
Affiliations
Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Reed, Chris
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Published
2018-08-06
Volume
376
Issue
2128
Pages
20170360
ISSN
  • 1364-503X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2962
OpenAlex
W2887319786
Cited by
114
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
14.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Queen Mary University of London
  • University of Cambridge
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
Keywords
AI regulation, algorithmic decision-making, liability, transparency, artificial neural networks, fundamental rights, legal responsibility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review