Human Judgment in algorithmic loops: Individual justice and automateddecision-making

Arguments in favor of tempering algorithmic decision making with human judgment often appeal to concepts and criteria derived from legal philosophy about the nature of law and legal reasoning, arguing that algorithmic systems cannot satisfy them (but humans can). Such arguments often make implicit appeal to the notion that each case needs to be assessed on its own merits, without comparison to or generalization from previous cases. This article argues that this notion of individual justice can only be meaningfully served through human judgment. It distinguishes individual justice and considers how it relates to other dimensions of justice, namely consistency and fairness / nondiscrimination. Finally, it identifies and discussess two challenges: first, how individual justice can be accommodated alongside other dimensions of justice in the socio-technical contexts of humans-in-the-loop; and second, how inequities in individual justice may result from an uneven application of human judgment in algorithmic contexts.

Automated summary

This article discusses arguments in favor of incorporating human judgment into algorithmic decision making and emphasizes that algorithmic systems cannot achieve individual justice, which can only be achieved through human judgment. The article also explores the relationship between individual justice and other dimensions of justice, and raises two challenges: how to reconcile individual justice with other dimensions of justice in human-in-the-loop socio-technical contexts, and how uneven application of human judgment in algorithmic contexts may result in inequities in individual justice.