))
At the AI's discretion
Manage episode 289360497 series 2803112
Contenu fourni par Matthew Lavy and Iain Munro. Tout le contenu du podcast, y compris les épisodes, les graphiques et les descriptions de podcast, est téléchargé et fourni directement par Matthew Lavy and Iain Munro ou son partenaire de plateforme de podcast. Si vous pensez que quelqu'un utilise votre œuvre protégée sans votre autorisation, vous pouvez suivre le processus décrit ici https://fr.player.fm/legal.
Where a contract confers a discretion on one party that materially affects the rights of its counterparty, the discretion must be exercised rationally. The Supreme Court held in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17 that exercising a discretion rationally involves (i) taking the right things (and only the right things) into account, and (ii) avoiding a decision that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached. In this episode, we explore how those principles might operate in the context of a discretion exercised automatically by a machine learning algorithm. We do so in the context of a fraud detection algorithm and an online farmers' market somewhere in East Anglia.
Further reading:
- This episode was inspired by Tom Whittaker's thought-provoking article on the case of TF Global Markets (UK) (trading as ThinkMarkets)) v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited [2020] EWHC 3178 (Admin). The article may be found here: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad5569ea-af1a-4040-b596-a6a29b3c73b0
- Supreme Court decision in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0099.html
- Anyone with any doubts as to the prevalence of AI-based fraud detection systems might like to do this: https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=ai+fraud+detection. There is no problem in principle with using such tools. The issue (in a contractual context) is how their outputs are translated into discretionary decisions.
14 episodes
Partager
