Cargando…
Interpretable algorithmic forensics
One of the most troubling trends in criminal investigations is the growing use of “black box” technology, in which law enforcement rely on artificial intelligence (AI) models or algorithms that are either too complex for people to understand or they simply conceal how it functions. In criminal cases...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
National Academy of Sciences
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10576126/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37782786 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301842120 |
_version_ | 1785121055955746816 |
---|---|
author | Garrett, Brandon L. Rudin, Cynthia |
author_facet | Garrett, Brandon L. Rudin, Cynthia |
author_sort | Garrett, Brandon L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | One of the most troubling trends in criminal investigations is the growing use of “black box” technology, in which law enforcement rely on artificial intelligence (AI) models or algorithms that are either too complex for people to understand or they simply conceal how it functions. In criminal cases, black box systems have proliferated in forensic areas such as DNA mixture interpretation, facial recognition, and recidivism risk assessments. The champions and critics of AI argue, mistakenly, that we face a catch 22: While black box AI is not understandable by people, they assume that it produces more accurate forensic evidence. In this Article, we question this assertion, which has so powerfully affected judges, policymakers, and academics. We describe a mature body of computer science research showing how “glass box” AI—designed to be interpretable—can be more accurate than black box alternatives. Indeed, black box AI performs predictably worse in settings like the criminal system. Debunking the black box performance myth has implications for forensic evidence, constitutional criminal procedure rights, and legislative policy. Absent some compelling—or even credible—government interest in keeping AI as a black box, and given the constitutional rights and public safety interests at stake, we argue that a substantial burden rests on the government to justify black box AI in criminal cases. We conclude by calling for judicial rulings and legislation to safeguard a right to interpretable forensic AI. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10576126 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | National Academy of Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105761262023-10-15 Interpretable algorithmic forensics Garrett, Brandon L. Rudin, Cynthia Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Perspective One of the most troubling trends in criminal investigations is the growing use of “black box” technology, in which law enforcement rely on artificial intelligence (AI) models or algorithms that are either too complex for people to understand or they simply conceal how it functions. In criminal cases, black box systems have proliferated in forensic areas such as DNA mixture interpretation, facial recognition, and recidivism risk assessments. The champions and critics of AI argue, mistakenly, that we face a catch 22: While black box AI is not understandable by people, they assume that it produces more accurate forensic evidence. In this Article, we question this assertion, which has so powerfully affected judges, policymakers, and academics. We describe a mature body of computer science research showing how “glass box” AI—designed to be interpretable—can be more accurate than black box alternatives. Indeed, black box AI performs predictably worse in settings like the criminal system. Debunking the black box performance myth has implications for forensic evidence, constitutional criminal procedure rights, and legislative policy. Absent some compelling—or even credible—government interest in keeping AI as a black box, and given the constitutional rights and public safety interests at stake, we argue that a substantial burden rests on the government to justify black box AI in criminal cases. We conclude by calling for judicial rulings and legislation to safeguard a right to interpretable forensic AI. National Academy of Sciences 2023-10-02 2023-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10576126/ /pubmed/37782786 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301842120 Text en Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by PNAS. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Perspective Garrett, Brandon L. Rudin, Cynthia Interpretable algorithmic forensics |
title | Interpretable algorithmic forensics |
title_full | Interpretable algorithmic forensics |
title_fullStr | Interpretable algorithmic forensics |
title_full_unstemmed | Interpretable algorithmic forensics |
title_short | Interpretable algorithmic forensics |
title_sort | interpretable algorithmic forensics |
topic | Perspective |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10576126/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37782786 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301842120 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT garrettbrandonl interpretablealgorithmicforensics AT rudincynthia interpretablealgorithmicforensics |