Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Article
Data sources: ZENODO
addClaim

Explainability as a Constitutional Requirement: Can "Black Box AI" ever be Judicially Legitimate?

Authors: Arkapriya Ghosh;

Explainability as a Constitutional Requirement: Can "Black Box AI" ever be Judicially Legitimate?

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence is no longer a speculative presence in judicial systems. Artificial Intelligence is used for case management software to algorithmic risk assessments used for bail and sentencing decisions across jurisdictions. Courts are increasingly engaging and investing in automated tools that promise efficiency, consistency, and speed. Yet many of these systems still operate as \"black boxes\"—producing outcomes without intelligible explanations. The inclusion of Artificial Intelligence in judicial administration challenges the foundational constitutional question: Can judicial legitimacy survive when reasons are replaced by results? Through an analysis of precedents set by the Supreme Court on reasoned orders and non-arbitrariness, the article…

Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback