The idea of using, also in the legal field, formulas that can be algorithmized and codified in a language that can be interpreted by a “machine” is an ancient thought that today finds new vigor and momentum.
In fact, the need to adapt traditional regulatory production to current regulatory and supervisory needs is one of the priorities of legislators around the world[1].
The nature and mode of operation of the relationships that arise in the “brackish” environment that constitutes the hybrid habitat in which man is operating cannot be abandoned to the primordial law “of nature”, where the strongest dictate the algo-rules[2] that others, the weakest, observe and suffer.
It is a phenomenon that has entered into the everyday life of social relations without knocking gently on the door asking “permission”, but breaking through every barrier placed in its path, “contaminating” everyone and everything, making itself indispensable and increasingly invisible[3].
“Thinking” of the algorithm as the appropriate tool to “perimeter” a “rule” is an inescapable path for a society, onlife, completely immersed in the infosphere, in which the concepts of space and time are relativized and finalized to the new economic and “social” needs.
In fact, in the essay The Ethical Algorithm, Michael Kearns and Aaron Roth state, “We believe that better algorithms that can help regular agencies, activist groups, and other human organizations monitor and measure the unwanted and undesirable effects of machine learning are needed to reduce misbehavior.”[4]
In the search for a solution to the bias[5] of the algorithm, one constant is found: more efficient algorithms that operate with human “oversight” are needed.
The creature has a constant need for its creator from whom it cannot be completely separated. This “active” participation represents the best guarantee for the survival of the human factor, in the automatism of a decision increasingly determined (consciously or not) by the technological factor (in general) and by artificial information agents (in particular).
Leo Stilo
[1] «The brusque pace of technological progress in the digital economy has unfortunately not been matched by policy at the global level that could regulate its development in an effective manner and foreshadow potential negative impacts. One reason for this discrepancy is the breakneck speed of technological transformations that have led to an overhaul the existing digital environment during the last two decades.» (tratto da: Gehl Sampath, Padmashree, Regulating the Digital Economy: Are We Heading for a Win-Win or a Lose Lose?(December 18, 2018), available at SSRN.
[2] A. Celotto, Come regolare gli algoritmi. Il difficile bilanciamento fra scienza, etica e diritto, in Analisi Giuridica dell’Economia, Studi e discussioni sul diritto dell’impresa,1/2019, Il Mulino, 47-60; A. Celotto, Verso l’algoretica. Quali regole per le forme di intelligenza artificiale?
[3] L. Bolognini, Follia artificiale, Rubbettino Editore, 2018 così descrive la realtà contemporanea: «..i Bit stanno impadronendosi di tutto delle nostre cose e dei nostri gesti, come il ghiaccio nella favola di Frozen».
[4]Michael Kearns e Aaron Roth, The Ethical Algorithm: “The Science of Socially Aware Algorithm Design, Oxford University Press (4 ottobre 2019): «Understanding and improving the science behind the algorithms that run our lives is rapidly becoming one of the most pressing issues of this century».
[5] P. Zuddas, Pregiudizi digitali e principio di precauzione, Fasc. 2, in Giurcost.it, 2020.
