A Summary of From Transparency to Justification: Toward Ex Ante Accountability for AI by Gianclaudio Malgieri and Frank Pasquale

Author’s Note: This is meant to be an example of the GPT Summarizer application I created. I’ve cleaned up some of the output, added highlights and certain markdown functionality (graph analysis, yo!) and dropped some superfluous bits, but overall, I think it does a great job summarizing a 27-page law review article.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4099657

Keyword Frequency Count

  • [[AI]]: 31
  • Inferred, AGI, ML: Not significantly mentioned.
  • [[Consent]]: Briefly discussed in the context of legal and ethical justifications for AI systems.
  • Moral Magic, Consent Fatigue, Privacy Harm, Meaningfully Given, Freely Given, Informed, Notice and Consent: These terms are not prominently featured, suggesting a broader focus on AI regulation rather than specific aspects of consent or privacy.

Highlighted Concepts

  • [[Ex Ante Accountability]]: The concept of preemptive regulation and accountability measures for AI, particularly for high-risk applications (p.1-4).
  • [[Justification of AI Systems]]: Emphasis on justifying AI operations not only from a technical standpoint but also against legal and ethical standards (p.2-4).
  • GDPR and AI Act: Reference to existing legal frameworks (GDPR) and proposed regulations (EU AI Act) as guiding principles for AI accountability (p.1-2).

Summary and Analysis:

Key Findings and Arguments

  • *AI Regulation and Accountability:
    • The document emphasizes the need for a shift in AI regulation, advocating for an ‘[[unlawfulness by default]]’ approach for AI systems, particularly those that are high-risk (p.1-
    • It suggests pre-approval models where AI developers must perform risk assessments and seek regulatory approval for high-risk systems (p.1-2).
    • The document’s approach centers on a critical view of current AI governance and suggests that a more proactive stance is necessary where AI systems must be proven lawful and compliant with various ethical and operational standards before deployment, rather than being presumed lawful until proven otherwise. This suggests a shift towards an “unlawfulness by default” model for AI systems, a significant departure from current regulatory approaches that tend to be reactive.
  • AI Accountability and Justification: (pages 1-4, 6, onwards)
    • The authors argue for enhanced ex-ante (before the fact) accountability measures, including licensure and stringent justifications for AI systems’ operations, especially in high-risk domains (p.2-4).
    • The ‘ex ante approach’ is discussed as a shift in regulatory focus from reacting to problems caused by AI (which is a post hoc or ex post approach) to preventing them before they occur. This involves more stringent measures, such as licensure requirements for AI systems before they are deployed. The authors argue that some potential harms that may arise from AI are too severe to be addressed after the fact and should be prevented proactively. The ‘ex ante approach’ is proposed as a more proactive method of AI governance, where there is a presumption of potential unlawfulness, and the onus is on developers and deployers of AI to demonstrate compliance with ethical, safety, and regulatory standards beforehand. The authors believe that this shift is necessary given the increasing pervasiveness and potential risks of AI in critical areas of life and society.‚Äč
  • Legal and Ethical Frameworks: (pages 1-4, 6 onwards)
    • The text references the GDPR and proposed EU AI Act as frameworks guiding sustainable AI environments but notes their current limitations (p.1-2).
    • It calls for a balance between AI’s legal and ethical justification, emphasizing the importance of aligning AI systems with fundamental legal and moral norms (p.3-4).
  • Licensure for AI Use:
    • The authors propose a [[licensure model]] for AI, especially in high-risk areas, to ensure its ethical and legal use (p.6-9, 20-24).
    • They discuss case studies like facial recognition and AI in finance, highlighting the need for strict regulation and oversight (p.6-10, 19-23).
    • Democratic Control: A licensure regime would allow citizens to democratically shape the scope and proper use of data, countering the trend of being passively influenced by AI.
  • Challenges and Implications:
    • The text outlines the challenges of implementing an AI licensure regime, including the complexity of regulatory environments and potential objections based on free speech (p.17-19, 25-27).
    • It emphasizes the need for a balance between innovation and ethical use of AI, with a focus on protecting civil rights and privacy (p.11-16, 22-23).
    • This suggests that AI systems should be evaluated and regulated based on a wider set of criteria, including their societal, legal, and ethical implications (Pages 2-4, 6 onwards).
  • Global Perspectives:
    • The authors compare AI regulation in various regions, noting the differences in approaches in the EU, U.S., Canada, and China (p.10-12, 16-17, 21-22).

Other Bits

  • Validity of AI Data and Algorithms: There’s increasing concern about the validity of the data used in AI and the algorithms it is based on, pointing out that relying on tort-based liability (a reactive measure) is insufficient.
  • Regulatory Structure: The document outlines a multi-part structure: expanding the scope of AI (Part I), examining current modes of AI regulation (Part II), elaborating a jurisprudential conception of justification (Part III), and addressing institutional dimensions and objections to the licensure proposal (Part IV).
  • Reflections on AI Licensure: The conclusion (Part V) reflects on the opportunities and changes that a licensure framework for AI could bring.
  • Page 4: Notes that AI’s superiority is fragile due to its reliance on changing datasets and that massive firms have access to comprehensive and intimate details about individuals.
  • Page 7: Argues for the use of several complementary tools for AI, such as a right of contestation and rights to human involvement and algorithmic auditing.
  • Page 9: As AI increasingly governs aspects of common life, there are more societal demands for justifications of AI products.
  • Page 11: Discusses justifying [algorithmic decision-making] in terms of data protection principles.
  • Page 13: Emphasizes the importance of data accuracy for justifying algorithms, particularly in the banking sector.
  • Page 20: Concludes the discussion by emphasizing the need for proper assurances against AI abuse before acceding to its large-scale application.
Scroll to Top