Author:
Wang Xukang,Wu Ying Cheng,Ji Xueliang,Fu Hongpeng
Abstract
IntroductionAlgorithmic decision-making systems are widely used in various sectors, including criminal justice, employment, and education. While these systems are celebrated for their potential to enhance efficiency and objectivity, they also pose risks of perpetuating and amplifying societal biases and discrimination. This paper aims to provide an indepth analysis of the types of algorithmic discrimination, exploring both the challenges and potential solutions.MethodsThe methodology includes a systematic literature review, analysis of legal documents, and comparative case studies across different geographic regions and sectors. This multifaceted approach allows for a thorough exploration of the complexity of algorithmic bias and its regulation.ResultsWe identify five primary types of algorithmic bias: bias by algorithmic agents, discrimination based on feature selection, proxy discrimination, disparate impact, and targeted advertising. The analysis of the U.S. legal and regulatory framework reveals a landscape of principled regulations, preventive controls, consequential liability, self-regulation, and heteronomy regulation. A comparative perspective is also provided by examining the status of algorithmic fairness in the EU, Canada, Australia, and Asia.ConclusionReal-world impacts are demonstrated through case studies focusing on criminal risk assessments and hiring algorithms, illustrating the tangible effects of algorithmic discrimination. The paper concludes with recommendations for interdisciplinary research, proactive policy development, public awareness, and ongoing monitoring to promote fairness and accountability in algorithmic decision-making. As the use of AI and automated systems expands globally, this work highlights the importance of developing comprehensive, adaptive approaches to combat algorithmic discrimination and ensure the socially responsible deployment of these powerful technologies.
Reference77 articles.
1. The paradox of automation as anti-bias intervention;Ajunwa;Cardozo L. Rev.,2019
2. Machine bias;Angwin,2022
3. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: the state of the art;Berk;Sociol. Methods Res.,2021
4. 75
BogenM.
RiekeA.
Help wanted: An examination of hiring algorithms, equity, and bias2018