Justicia algorítmica y autodeterminación deliberativa

Daniel Innerarity

doi:10.3989/isegoria.2023.68.23

Autores/as

Daniel Innerarity Ikerbasque Foundation for Science (UPV/EHU) / Chair Artificial Intelligence and Democracy (European University Institute of Florence) https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4307-8468

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2023.68.23

Palabras clave:

Justicia, algoritmos, sesgos, democracia deliberativa

Resumen

Si la democracia consiste en posibilitar que todas las personas tengan iguales posibilidades de influir en las decisiones que les afectan, las sociedades digitales tienen que interrogarse por el modo de conseguir que los nuevos entornos hagan factible esa igualdad. Las primeras dificultades son conceptuales: entender cómo se configura la interacción entre los humanos y los algoritmos, en qué consiste el aprendizaje de estos dispositivos y cuál es la naturaleza de sus sesgos. Inmediatamente después nos topamos con la cuestión ineludible de qué clase de igualdad estamos tratando de asegurar, teniendo en cuenta la diversidad de concepciones de la justicia que hay en nuestras sociedades. Si articular ese pluralismo no es un asunto que pueda resolverse con una técnica agregativa, sino que requiere compromisos políticos, entonces una concepción deliberativa de la democracia parece la más apta para conseguir esa igualdad a la que aspiran las sociedades democráticas.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Amoore, Louise (2020), Cloud Ethics. Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others, Durham / London: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478009276

Arrow, Kenneth J. (1950), "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare", Journal of Political Economy 58, 328-346. https://doi.org/10.1086/256963

Baumer, Eric y Brubaker, Jed (2017). "Post-userism", en Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 6291-6303. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025740

Beck, Ulrich; Lash, Scott y Giddens, Anthony (1994), Reflexive Modernization, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Berk, Richard; Heidari, Hoda; Jabbari, Shahin; Kearns, Michael y Roth, Aaron (2017), "Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art", arXiv preprint, arXiv:1703.09207 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118782533

Binns, Reuben (2018a), "Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy", Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 81, 149-159.

Binns, Reuben (2018b), "Algorithmic Accountability and Public Reason", Philosophy & Technology 31, 543-556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5 PMid:30873342 PMCid:PMC6390894

Brooks, Frederick P. (1975), The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. https://doi.org/10.1145/800027.808439 PMid:124066

Coglianese, Cary y Lai, Alicia (2022), "Algorithm vs. Algorithm", Duke Law Journal, Vol. 72, University of Pennsilvania Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 22-11, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026207

Collins, Patricia Hill (2002), Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, New York: Routledge.

Coyle, Diane y Weller, Adrian (2020), "Explaining Machine Learning Reveals Policy Challenges", Science 386 / 6498, 1433-1434. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9647 PMid:32587011

Crenshaw, Kimberlé (ed.) (2019), Seeing Race Again: Countering Colorblindness across the Disciplines, Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520972148

Christian, Brian (2020), The Alignment Problem: Machine Learning and Human Values, New York: Norton & Company.

Dieterich, William; Mendoza, Christina y Brennan, Tim (2016), "COMPAS Risk Scales: Demonstrating Accuracy Equity and Predictive Parity", Northpoint Inc. Available Online at: http://go.volarisgroup.com/rs/430- MBX-989/images/ProPublica_Commentary_Final_070616.pdf

Dwork, Cynthia; Hardt, Moritz; Pitassi, Toniann; Reingold, Omer y Zemel, Richard (2012), "Fairness through awareness", Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 214-226. https://doi.org/10.1145/2090236.2090255

Friedler, Sorelle; Scheidegger, Carlos y Venkatasubramanian, Suresh (2016), "On the (Im)possibility of Fairness", arXiv preprint, arXiv:1609.07236.

Gal, Michal (2017), "Algorithmic challenges to autonomous choice", Michigan Telecommunications and Thechnology Law Review 25, 59-104. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2971456

García Marzá, Domingo y Calvo, Patrici (2022), "Democracia algorítmica: ¿un nuevo cambio estructural de la opinión pública?", Isegoría, (67/17). https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2022.67.17

Green, Been y Hu, Lily (2018), "The myth in the methodology: Towards a recontextualization of fairness in machine learning", Machine Learning: The Debates workshop at the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning. https://www.benzevgreen.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/18-icmldebates.pdf

Hanna, Alex; Denton, Emily; Smart, Andrew y Smith-Loud, Jamila (2020), "Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness", Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372826

Hardt, Moritz (2014), "How Big Data Is Unfair: Understanding Unintended Sources of Unfairness in Data Driven Decision Making", Medium, September 26. https://medium.com/@mrtz/how-big-data-is-unfair-9aa544d739de

Innerarity, Daniel (2019), "Democratic equality: an egalitarian defense of political mediation", Constellations. An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory, 26/4, 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12402

Innerarity, Daniel (2023), A theory of complex democracy. Governing in the Twenty-first century, London: Bloomsbury.

Jolls, Chistine; Sunstein, Cass R. y Thaler, Richard (1998), "A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics", Stanford Law Review 50 (5), 1471-550. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229304

Kahneman, Daniel (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kasy, Maximilian y Abebe, Rediet (2021), "Fairness, equality, and power in algorithmic decision-making", en Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 576-586. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445919

Lai, Alicia (2018), Brain Bait: Effects of Cognitive Biases on Scientific Evidence in Legal Decision-Making, A.B. thesis, Princeton University.

Martí, José Luis (2021), "New Technologies at the Service of Deliberative Democracy" en Amato, Guiliano; Barbisan, Benedetta y Pinelli, Cesar (eds.), Rule of Law vs Majoritarian Democracy, New York: Bloomsbury, 199-220.

Miconi, Thomas (2017), "The Impossibility of 'Fairness': A Generalized Impossibility Result for Decisions", arXiv preprint, arXiv:1707.01195

Mitchell, Shira; Potash, Eric; Barocas, Solon; D'Amour, Alexander y Lum, Kristian (2021), "Algorithmic fairness: Choices, assumptions, and definitions", Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 8, 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-042720-125902

Mittelstadt, Brent; Allo, Patrick; Taddeo, Mariarosaria; Wachter, Sandra y Floridi, Luciano (2016), "The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate", Big Data & Society, 3/2, July-December. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679

Ochigame, Rodrigo; Barabas, Chelsea; Dinakar, Karthik; Virza, Madars e Ito, Joichi (2018), "Beyond legitimation: Rethinking fairness, interpretability, and accuracy in machine learning", en The Debates, at the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning.

Parnas, David Lorge (1985), "Software Aspects of Strategic Defense Systems", American Scientist, September-October 1985, 432-440.

Pettigrew, Richard (2020), Choosing for Changing Selves, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814962.001.0001

Robertson, Samantha y Salehi, Niloufar (2020), "What if I don't like any of the choices? The limits of preference elicitation for participatory algorithm design", en Participatory Approaches to Machine Learning Workshop, ICML 2020. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.06718.pdf

Rouvroy, Antoinette (2013), "The end(s) of critique: data-behaviourism vs. due process", en Hildebrandt, Mireille y de Vries, Katja (eds.), Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn. Philosophers of Law Meet Philosophers of Technology, New York: Routledge.

Russell, Stuart (2019), "The purpose put into the machine", Brockman, John (ed.), Possible Minds. 25 Ways of Looking at AI, New York: Penguin, 20-32.

Selbst, Andrew D.; Boyd, Danah; Friedler, Sorelle A.; Venkatasubramanian, Suresh y Vertesi, Janet (2019). "Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems", en Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598

Thaler, Richard H. (2015), Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics, New York: Norton & Co.

Waldman, Ari Ezra (2019), "Power, Process, and Automated Decision-Making", 88 Fordham Law Review 613. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol88/iss2/9

Wang, Annie J. (2018), "Procedural justice and risk-assessment algorithms". SSRN Electronic Journal 2018: 1-31. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3170136

Zarsky, Tal (2016), "The Trouble with Algorithmic Decisions An Analytic Road Map to Examine Efficiency and Fairness in Automated and Opaque Decision Making", Science, Technology & Human Values 41, 118-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915605575

Züger, Theresa; Milan, Stefania y Tanczer, Leonie Maria (2017), "Sand im Getriebe der Informationsgesellschaft: Wie digitale Technologien die Paradigmen des Zivilen Ungehorsams herausfordern und verändern", en Politische Theorie und Digitalisierung, Jacob, Daniel y Thiel, Thorsten (eds.), Baden-Baden: Nomos, 265-296. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845280462-265