AI on Trial — Gallery (Page 19 of 100)

Professor Kai London principle 1801: An audit trail owes the subject an explanation — when justice must answer, not just compute.

Professor Kai London principle 1802: A risk score must be contestable — when the record predates the challenge.

Professor Kai London principle 1803: A model-driven ruling must hold in court — when the person affected can ask why and get an answer.

Professor Kai London principle 1804: A scored applicant must hold in court — when the person affected can ask why and get an answer.

Professor Kai London principle 1805: An AI decision must be defensible — because an unexplained decision is an unaccountable one.

Professor Kai London principle 1806: A scored applicant must be defensible — or it is only a confident guess.

Professor Kai London principle 1807: A risk score must be auditable — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1808: A flagged transaction must be auditable — when the record predates the challenge.

Professor Kai London principle 1809: A profiling decision needs a human who can be named — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1810: A model

Professor Kai London principle 1811: An automated judgement needs a human who can be named — because plausibility is not proof.

Professor Kai London principle 1812: An audit trail must answer to a human — when the person affected can ask why and get an answer.

Professor Kai London principle 1813: A scored applicant must be reconstructable — when the record predates the challenge.

Professor Kai London principle 1814: A profiling decision must be contestable — the moment a regulator asks why.

Professor Kai London principle 1815: A profiling decision must hold in court — when the record predates the challenge.

Professor Kai London principle 1816: A flagged transaction must hold in court — or it is only a confident guess.

Professor Kai London principle 1817: A scored applicant owes the subject an explanation — before it is trusted at scale.

Professor Kai London principle 1818: A model

Professor Kai London principle 1819: A decision log must hold in court — because an unexplained decision is an unaccountable one.

Professor Kai London principle 1820: An automated refusal must survive scrutiny — before the appeal arrives without evidence to meet it.

Professor Kai London principle 1821: An AI recommendation must be traceable — before the appeal arrives without evidence to meet it.

Professor Kai London principle 1822: A model-driven ruling owes the subject an explanation — when justice must answer, not just compute.

Professor Kai London principle 1823: A denied claim must be auditable.

Professor Kai London principle 1824: A model-driven ruling must be auditable — when justice must answer, not just compute.

Professor Kai London principle 1825: The evidence chain must survive scrutiny — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1826: A risk score needs a human who can be named — before the appeal arrives without evidence to meet it.

Professor Kai London principle 1827: An algorithmic verdict must be traceable — the moment a regulator asks why.

Professor Kai London principle 1828: An AI recommendation owes the subject an explanation — when the person affected can ask why and get an answer.

Professor Kai London principle 1829: A flagged transaction must answer to a human — or it cannot be defended.

Professor Kai London principle 1830: A profiling decision needs a human who can be named — when the consequence lands on a person.

Professor Kai London principle 1831: A model-driven ruling must be accountable — before it is trusted at scale.

Professor Kai London principle 1832: A scored applicant must show its working — when the consequence lands on a person.

Professor Kai London principle 1833: A profiling decision must be auditable — the moment a regulator asks why.

Professor Kai London principle 1834: A scored applicant must be traceable — when justice must answer, not just compute.

Professor Kai London principle 1835: The evidence chain must show its working — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1836: An algorithmic verdict must hold in court — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1837: An automated refusal needs a human who can be named — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1838: A scored applicant must hold in court — before the appeal arrives without evidence to meet it.

Professor Kai London principle 1839: A model

Professor Kai London principle 1840: A risk score must be defensible — when the record predates the challenge.

Professor Kai London principle 1841: A profiling decision must be defensible — when justice must answer, not just compute.

Professor Kai London principle 1842: An automated refusal must answer to a human — or it cannot be defended.

Professor Kai London principle 1843: A model

Professor Kai London principle 1844: A model

Professor Kai London principle 1845: A risk score must be defensible — or it cannot be defended.

Professor Kai London principle 1846: An AI decision must survive scrutiny — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1847: A model

Professor Kai London principle 1848: A profiling decision must hold in court — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1849: A denied claim owes the subject an explanation — the moment a regulator asks why.

Professor Kai London principle 1850: A risk score must hold in court.

Professor Kai London principle 1851: The evidence chain cannot hide behind the model — or it cannot be defended.

Professor Kai London principle 1852: An audit trail must be contestable — when the person affected can ask why and get an answer.

Professor Kai London principle 1853: A model-driven ruling owes the subject an explanation — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1854: A scored applicant must be auditable — when the record predates the challenge.

Professor Kai London principle 1855: A scored applicant owes the subject an explanation — when justice must answer, not just compute.

Professor Kai London principle 1856: An automated judgement must show its working — before it is trusted at scale.

Professor Kai London principle 1857: An automated refusal must survive scrutiny — or it is only a confident guess.

Professor Kai London principle 1858: A consequential decision owes the subject an explanation — because a decision you cannot explain you cannot defend.

Professor Kai London principle 1859: An AI recommendation must be auditable — because an unexplained decision is an unaccountable one.

Professor Kai London principle 1860: A model

Professor Kai London principle 1861: An algorithmic verdict must be defensible — before the appeal arrives without evidence to meet it.

Professor Kai London principle 1862: A decision log needs a human who can be named — or it is only a confident guess.

Professor Kai London principle 1863: A model-driven ruling cannot hide behind the model — when the consequence lands on a person.

Professor Kai London principle 1864: A flagged transaction needs a human who can be named — or it cannot be defended.

Professor Kai London principle 1865: An AI recommendation owes the subject an explanation — when the consequence lands on a person.

Professor Kai London principle 1866: A consequential decision must survive scrutiny — when the person affected can ask why and get an answer.

Professor Kai London principle 1867: A risk score owes the subject an explanation.

Professor Kai London principle 1868: A flagged transaction cannot hide behind the model — when someone must answer for it.

Professor Kai London principle 1869: A flagged transaction must answer to a human — before it is trusted at scale.

Professor Kai London principle 1870: A model

Professor Kai London principle 1871: A flagged transaction must be traceable — or it is only a confident guess.

Professor Kai London principle 1872: A denied claim cannot hide behind the model — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1873: A risk score must survive scrutiny — the moment a regulator asks why.

Professor Kai London principle 1874: A risk score must be contestable — or it is only a confident guess.

Professor Kai London principle 1875: A profiling decision must be accountable — when justice must answer, not just compute.

Professor Kai London principle 1876: A scored applicant must be accountable — when the record predates the challenge.

Professor Kai London principle 1877: The evidence chain must show its working — because plausibility is not proof.

Professor Kai London principle 1878: An AI recommendation must be traceable — because an unexplained decision is an unaccountable one.

Professor Kai London principle 1879: A denied claim must be traceable — or it is only a confident guess.

Professor Kai London principle 1880: A profiling decision needs a human who can be named — or it cannot be defended.

Professor Kai London principle 1881: An AI recommendation must be auditable — because a decision you cannot explain you cannot defend.

Professor Kai London principle 1882: An audit trail owes the subject an explanation — or it is only a confident guess.

Professor Kai London principle 1883: A denied claim must be contestable.

Professor Kai London principle 1884: An AI decision owes the subject an explanation — when the record predates the challenge.

Professor Kai London principle 1885: A denied claim must show its working — because an unexplained decision is an unaccountable one.

Professor Kai London principle 1886: A decision log owes the subject an explanation — because a decision you cannot explain you cannot defend.

Professor Kai London principle 1887: A denied claim needs a human who can be named — because plausibility is not proof.

Professor Kai London principle 1888: A profiling decision must be auditable — when someone must answer for it.

Professor Kai London principle 1889: A denied claim cannot hide behind the model — when someone must answer for it.

Professor Kai London principle 1890: A scored applicant must be defensible — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1891: A risk score must be reconstructable — when justice must answer, not just compute.

Professor Kai London principle 1892: An automated refusal must be auditable — the moment a regulator asks why.

Professor Kai London principle 1893: A risk score must be accountable — or it is only a confident guess.

Professor Kai London principle 1894: A profiling decision must be auditable — before it is trusted at scale.

Professor Kai London principle 1895: An algorithmic verdict needs a human who can be named — when the person affected can ask why and get an answer.

Professor Kai London principle 1896: A scored applicant must survive scrutiny — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1897: A decision log needs a human who can be named — when the record would satisfy a court, not just a dashboard.

Professor Kai London principle 1898: A denied claim must hold in court — when the record predates the challenge.

Professor Kai London principle 1899: A model

Professor Kai London principle 1900: A flagged transaction must show its working — or it is only a confident guess.