Professor Chris Goodman, "AI Can You Hear Me? Promoting Procedural Due Process in Government Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies" -- Richmond Journal of Law and Technology
Professor Chris Chambers Goodman's article, "AI Can You Hear Me? Promoting Procedural Due Process in Government Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies," (SSRN) is published in the Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 28 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 700 (2022). The article examines the consitutional implications of algorithms, machine learning, and Artificial Intelligence in legal processes and decision-making.
Abstract of "AI Can You Hear Me? Promoting Procedural Due Process in Government Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies"
This Article explores the constitutional implications of algorithms, machine learning, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in legal processes and decision-making, particularly under the Due Process Clause. Regarding Judge Henry J. Friendly’s procedural due process principles of the U.S. Constitution, decisions produced using AI appear to violate all but one or two of them. For instance, AI systems may provide the right to present evidence and notice of the proposed action, but do not provide any opportunity for meaningful cross-examination, knowledge of opposing evidence, or the true reasoning behind a decision. Notice can also be inadequate or even incomprehensible. This Article analyzes the challenges of complying with procedural due process when employing AI systems, explains constraints on computer-assisted legal decision-making, and evaluates policies for fair AI processes in other jurisdictions, including the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK). Building on existing literature, it explores the various stages in the AI development process, noting the different points at which bias may occur, thereby undermining procedural due process principles. Furthermore, it discusses the key variables at the heart of AI machine learning models and proposes a framework for responsible AI designs. Finally, this Article concludes with recommendations to promote the interests of justice in the United States as the technology develops.