On mapping values in AI Governance

Abstract

We propose here a conceptual framework by which to analyze legal-regulatory problematics of algorithmic decision-making systems, focusing on mechanisms of value production in their design and deployment. An aim of our intervention is to develop an investigative model for application to algorithmic decision systems with regulatory effects, including predictive artificial intelligence applications and recommender systems that filter data and suggest courses of action. Technical systems that integrate complex algorithmic techniques perform critical and sensitive functions that are both object and instrument of regulatory governance, functions such as predicting behavior, steering information flows, assessing risk, etc. These functions, however, are not simple or static phenomena, but rather contextual, partial performances of complex socio-technical dynamics. One of our interests is to discern what is valorized in this new regulatory ecology. Accordingly, we are sketching a framework to target terms and tokens of value as they are produced, reproduced, incorporated, and translated among design processes, legal practices and background conditions structuring their use. Rather than asking which values AI should satisfy in contested governance contexts, we address conceptually prior questions concerning how values manifest and ‘map’ among context-sensitive computational and social processes in the first place. Furthermore, current research often takes for granted that an AI application is produced against the backdrop of a stable and pre-defined set of values and legal practices. Existing research does not yet adequately account for the ways in which laws and values as produced in and through the ecology of the AI application differ from idealized presuppositions assumed to preexist development of the latter. For the purpose, our contribution engages three broad lines of inquiry: one, we take forward calls for a materialized study of law, such as put forward broadly by Alain Pottage, and as put forward more recently and specifically with respect to computational technologies by Mireille Hildebrandt, among others; two, we contribute to the elaboration of a critical practice for AI, in the tradition of Philip Agre; and three, our attention to assemblages potentially contributes to debates over techno-regulation or regulation by design.