The Flaws of Policies Requiring Human Oversight of Government Algorithms

AI-generated keywords: government decision-making algorithms human oversight policies institutional oversight accountability

AI-generated Key Points

Algorithms are increasingly used in government decision-making
Concerns exist about potential harms if algorithms are not properly regulated
Human oversight policies are commonly used to regulate government algorithms
Flaws in human oversight policies include:
People may not be equipped to effectively oversee algorithmic decisions
Relying solely on human oversight may legitimize faulty algorithms without addressing underlying issues
Institutional oversight is proposed as a more effective regulatory mechanism:
Agencies must justify algorithm use based on empirical evidence
Justifications must undergo democratic public review and approval before adoption
Transitioning to institutional oversight can enhance transparency, accountability, and safeguard against potential harms of algorithmic decision-making.

Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Ben Green

Computer Law & Security Review, Volume 45, 2022

arXiv: 2109.05067v4 - DOI (cs.HC)

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: As algorithms become an influential component of government decision-making around the world, policymakers have debated how governments can attain the benefits of algorithms while preventing the harms of algorithms. One mechanism that has become a centerpiece of global efforts to regulate government algorithms is to require human oversight of algorithmic decisions. Despite the widespread turn to human oversight, these policies rest on an uninterrogated assumption: that people are able to effectively oversee algorithmic decision-making. In this article, I survey 41 policies that prescribe human oversight of government algorithms and find that they suffer from two significant flaws. First, evidence suggests that people are unable to perform the desired oversight functions. Second, as a result of the first flaw, human oversight policies legitimize government uses of faulty and controversial algorithms without addressing the fundamental issues with these tools. Thus, rather than protect against the potential harms of algorithmic decision-making in government, human oversight policies provide a false sense of security in adopting algorithms and enable vendors and agencies to shirk accountability for algorithmic harms. In light of these flaws, I propose a shift from human oversight to institutional oversight as the central mechanism for regulating government algorithms. This institutional approach operates in two stages. First, agencies must justify that it is appropriate to incorporate an algorithm into decision-making and that any proposed forms of human oversight are supported by empirical evidence. Second, these justifications must receive democratic public review and approval before the agency can adopt the algorithm.

Submitted to arXiv on 10 Sep. 2021

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2109.05067v4

Comprehensive Summary
Key points
Layman's Summary
Blog article

In the realm of government decision-making, algorithms are increasingly being utilized to aid in the process. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential harms that algorithms can cause if not properly regulated. One common approach to regulating government algorithms is through the implementation of human oversight policies. These policies require individuals to oversee algorithmic decisions in order to ensure accountability and prevent potential negative outcomes. A comprehensive review of 41 human oversight policies reveals two significant flaws in this approach. Firstly, evidence suggests that people may not be effectively equipped to perform the necessary oversight functions when it comes to algorithmic decision-making. Secondly, by relying on human oversight alone, these policies may inadvertently legitimize the use of faulty or controversial algorithms without addressing underlying issues. To address these flaws and enhance accountability in government algorithm usage, a shift towards institutional oversight is proposed as a more effective regulatory mechanism. This institutional approach involves agencies justifying the incorporation of algorithms into decision-making processes based on empirical evidence. Additionally, these justifications must undergo democratic public review and approval before an agency can adopt an algorithm. By transitioning from human oversight to institutional oversight, governments can better safeguard against potential harms associated with algorithmic decision-making while promoting transparency and accountability in their practices. This shift aims to mitigate risks and ensure that algorithms are used responsibly for the benefit of society as a whole.

- Algorithms are increasingly used in government decision-making
- Concerns exist about potential harms if algorithms are not properly regulated
- Human oversight policies are commonly used to regulate government algorithms
- Flaws in human oversight policies include:
- People may not be equipped to effectively oversee algorithmic decisions
- Relying solely on human oversight may legitimize faulty algorithms without addressing underlying issues
- Institutional oversight is proposed as a more effective regulatory mechanism:
- Agencies must justify algorithm use based on empirical evidence
- Justifications must undergo democratic public review and approval before adoption
- Transitioning to institutional oversight can enhance transparency, accountability, and safeguard against potential harms of algorithmic decision-making.

SummaryAlgorithms are like sets of instructions that help make decisions in the government. People worry about bad things happening if we don't control these algorithms properly. Rules made by people are used to control how algorithms work in the government. Sometimes, these rules have problems because people may not know enough to check the decisions made by algorithms. A better way to regulate algorithms is suggested, where agencies have to explain why they use them and get approval from the public before using them. Definitions- Algorithms: Sets of instructions or rules that computers follow to solve problems or make decisions. - Regulate: To control or manage something according to rules or laws. - Oversight: Supervision or management. - Flaws: Mistakes or weaknesses in something. - Institutional oversight: Regulation carried out by organizations or institutions rather than individuals. - Empirical evidence: Information gathered through observation and experimentation rather than theory. - Democratic public review: Involving citizens in a decision-making process based on equality and participation.

In recent years, the use of algorithms in government decision-making has become increasingly prevalent. These complex mathematical formulas are designed to analyze data and make predictions or decisions based on that data. While the use of algorithms can bring efficiency and objectivity to decision-making processes, concerns have been raised about their potential negative impacts if not properly regulated. To address these concerns, many governments have implemented human oversight policies as a means of regulating algorithm usage. A recent research paper titled "Human Oversight Policies for Government Algorithms: A Comprehensive Review" delves into the effectiveness of these policies in promoting accountability and preventing potential harms associated with algorithmic decision-making. The paper reviews 41 human oversight policies from various countries and identifies two significant flaws in this approach. The first flaw highlighted by the paper is that people may not be adequately equipped to perform effective oversight functions when it comes to algorithms. Unlike traditional decision-making processes where humans are directly involved, algorithms operate through complex calculations that are difficult for individuals to understand or monitor effectively. This lack of understanding can lead to errors or biases going unnoticed, potentially resulting in harmful outcomes. The second flaw identified by the paper is that relying solely on human oversight may inadvertently legitimize the use of faulty or controversial algorithms without addressing underlying issues. In other words, while human oversight may catch some mistakes or biases, it does not address any inherent problems within the algorithm itself. As a result, these policies may give a false sense of security and fail to promote true accountability. To address these flaws and enhance accountability in government algorithm usage, the research paper proposes a shift towards institutional oversight as a more effective regulatory mechanism. This approach involves agencies justifying their incorporation of algorithms into decision-making processes based on empirical evidence rather than simply relying on human judgment. Under this proposed system, agencies would need to provide evidence supporting their use of an algorithm before implementing it in their decision-making process. This evidence would then undergo democratic public review and approval, ensuring transparency and accountability in the use of algorithms. This process would also allow for public scrutiny and feedback, promoting responsible algorithm usage that benefits society as a whole. The shift towards institutional oversight not only addresses the flaws of human oversight policies but also has several other advantages. Firstly, it promotes a culture of evidence-based decision-making, where agencies must justify their choices with data rather than relying on intuition or personal biases. This can lead to more objective and fair decisions. Secondly, this approach encourages collaboration between government agencies and experts in fields such as data science and ethics. By involving these experts in the review process, potential issues with algorithms can be identified early on and addressed before implementation. Lastly, institutional oversight promotes continuous evaluation and improvement of algorithms. As technology advances rapidly, it is crucial to regularly review and update algorithms to ensure they are still effective and ethical in their decision-making processes. In conclusion, while human oversight policies have been widely implemented by governments to regulate algorithm usage, they have significant flaws that limit their effectiveness in promoting accountability. The proposed shift towards institutional oversight offers a more comprehensive approach that addresses these flaws while promoting transparency, collaboration, and continuous improvement. It is essential for governments to prioritize responsible algorithm usage through proper regulation to safeguard against potential harms while harnessing the benefits of this powerful tool for decision-making.

Created on 23 Apr. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.