Cited by 26Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationArtificial Intelligence in Law

Algorithms: law and regulation

Treleaven, Philip, Barnett, Jeremy, Koshiyama, Adriano·2019·Computer

Abstract

The legal status of AI and algorithms continues to be debated. Resume-sifting algorithms exhibit unethical, discriminatory, and illegal behavior; crime-sentencing algorithms are unable to justify their decisions; and autonomous vehicles' predictive analytics software will make life and death decisions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/mc.2018.2888774

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Treleaven, P., Barnett, J., & Koshiyama, A.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Crown and County Court, London, United Kingdom
Venue
Computer
Published
2019-02
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
32-40
ISSN
  • 0018-9162 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0814
OpenAlex
W2944110813
Cited by
26
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
FWCI
7.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computer (publishedVersion)
Funders
LG Display
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
Keywords
algorithms, artificial intelligence law, algorithmic discrimination, algorithmic transparency, algorithmic accountability, automated decision-making, resume screening, autonomous vehicles, predictive analytics, AI regulation

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