About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

71 Duke L.J. 1281 (2021-2022)
Algorithm vs. Algorithm

handle is hein.journals/duklr71 and id is 1281 raw text is: ALGORITHM VS. ALGORITHM CARY COGLIANESEt AND ALICIA LAItt ABSTRACT Critics raise alarm bells about governmental use of digital algorithms, charging that they are too complex, inscrutable, and prone to bias. A realistic assessment of digital algorithms, though, must acknowledge that government is already driven by algorithms of arguably greater complexity and potential for abuse: the algorithms implicit in human decision-making. The human brain operates algorithmically through complex neural networks. And when humans make collective decisions, they operate via algorithms too-those reflected in legislative, judicial, and administrative processes. Yet these human algorithms undeniably fail and are far from transparent. On an individual level, human decision-making suffers from memory limitations, fatigue, cognitive biases, and racial prejudices, among other problems. On an organizational level, humans succumb to groupthink and free riding, along with other collective dysfunctionalities. As a result, human decisions will in some cases prove far more problematic than their digital counterparts. Digital algorithms, such as machine learning, can improve governmental performance by facilitating outcomes that are more accurate, timely, and consistent. Still, when deciding whether to deploy digital algorithms to perform tasks currently completed by humans, public officials should proceed with Copyright © 2022 Cary Coglianese and Alicia Lai. t Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Director, Penn Program on Regulation, University of Pennsylvania Law School. f t Judicial Law Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The opinions set forth in this article are solely those of the authors and do not represent the views of any other person or institution. The authors gratefully acknowledge the many helpful comments on this project from participants in sessions where draft versions of this manuscript were presented, including at the European Consortium of Political Research, Harvard Kennedy School, Northwestern University School of Law, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and Vanderbilt University School of Law. We are grateful for helpful comments from participants in these sessions as well as from Richard Berk, Madalina Busuioc, David Lehr, Aaron Roth, and Jennifer Rothman, along with input on related projects by Steven Appel and Lavi Ben Dor. The journal's editors -especially Jennalee Beazley, Beresford Clarke, Chelsea Cooper, Drew Langan, Emma Ritter, Karen Sheng, and Jenny Wheeler-offered incisive feedback, while Steven Appel, Emma Ronzetti, Jasmine Wang, and Roshie Xing provided valuable research assistance. This article is based in part on a report initially prepared for the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), but the views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily ACUS or its members or staff.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most