Cited by 262Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in LawDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Racist in the Machine

Garcia, Megan·2016·World Policy Journal

Abstract

Companies and governments need to pay attention to the unconscious and institutional biases that seep into their algorithms, argues cybersecurity expert Megan Garcia. Distorted data can skew results in web searches, home loan decisions, or photo recognition software. But the combination of increased attention to the inputs, greater clarity about the properties of the code itself, and the use of crowd-level monitoring could contribute to a more equitable online world. Without careful consideration, Garcia writes, our technology will be just as racist, sexist, and xenophobic as we are.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1215/07402775-3813015

Cites

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.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garcia, M.
Corresponding author
Garcia, Megan
Venue
World Policy Journal
Published
2016-12-01
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
111-117
ISSN
  • 0740-2775 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-0924
OpenAlex
W2569124586
Cited by
257
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
28.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
World Policy Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
algorithmic bias, institutional bias, implicit bias, algorithmic discrimination, algorithmic accountability, crowd monitoring, algorithmic transparency, algorithmic fairness, sexism, xenophobia, automated decision-making

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