Abstract
Abstract This article avails an autoethnography of the authors’ attempt to construct a post hoc intervention machine learning (ml) system responsive to the problem of discrimination in asylum law decisions. In the article we revisit the conjunction of law as a slow hermeneutic, against the fast-paced pull of ai and commercial imperatives to ask whether a ml-driven post hoc intervention system such as the one set up in the research project reduces the overall risk of discrimination emerging from human discretion in legal decision making on asylum. We conclude that a ml-driven ‘anti-discrimination machine’ will displace rather than reduce that overall risk. We warn that similar attempts at using ml as part of legal decision making, decision support, and post hoc interventions, in international law and beyond, may need to take seriously the risks of human discretion embedded in ml design and data selection.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
