|
|
|
Image by PashaIgnatov and Just_Super/Getty Images
|
|
If an algorithm made a decision that caused you harm, would you sue it? That's the question RAND researchers were seeking to answer when they designed a survey to test what people would do when faced with an unfair AI outcome.
The results were clear: Survey respondents were perfectly willing to take computers to court. “That's encouraging,” says study lead Elina Treyger. “It means they're not exempting algorithms from our general moral judgments. They're willing to take legal action to redress algorithmic harms. That can be a real mechanism for accountability.”
Although these findings suggest that people will continue to use the courts to defend their rights in the era of AI, many questions remain. For instance, it's not clear who exactly would be responsible for bad algorithmic decisions. (The developers who wrote the code? The company that used it?) Further, it can be difficult to know why an AI made a particular decision, which makes it tough to prove that it's wrong.
This is why U.S. policymakers may want to consider spelling out a specific legal right for people to contest AI decisions, much like the European Union already has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Haiti faces widespread food insecurity, a lack of access to medical care, and a wave of deadly violence, preparations are underway for an expected multinational security mission. Restoring rule of law will be no easy task, says RAND's Marie Jones, largely because of the stranglehold that gangs have on the island nation. But if some balance can be achieved, then Haitian leaders may be able to leverage the country’s resilient civil society, young population, and large diaspora in the United States and elsewhere to build long-term stability and prosperity. Read more »
|
|
|
|
Many U.S. experts hope that some form of diplomacy will prevent North Korean attacks and especially Pyongyang's threatened use of nuclear weapons. But according to RAND's Bruce Bennett, negotiators should be careful that North Korea doesn't gain long-term advantages in exchange for promising better behavior in the near term. After all, Kim Jong-un has made it clear that North Korean denuclearization is not on the table. So even if he were to agree to reduce his threats and provocations, Kim would likely only do so while pursuing his ultimate goal: dominating the Korean Peninsula. Read more »
|
|
|
|
|
RAND Recommends
|
|
|
- Appearing on a Scientific American podcast, RAND's Nidhi Kalra offered advice for navigating uncertainty: “A big part of it is reframing the question from, 'What's the best thing I can do, given what I believe will happen?' to 'What is the good enough thing to do, given that I don't know what will happen?'”
- Russia's early invasion plan for Ukraine was irresponsible, RAND's Scott Boston told Business Insider. “Doctrine and training can only do so much when you're sent to do the wrong thing with the wrong tools for the job.”
- Meghan L. O'Sullivan, an influential national security expert and Harvard Kennedy School professor, was elected to the RAND Board of Trustees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
