Answerability and its effects on civil liability
Main Article Content
Abstract
The English word 'answerability' indicates a reciprocal justification procedure for choices that goes beyond the right to information, allowing for an understanding of the entire scenario of the operation performed, which may involve algorithmic data processing. In the field of civil liability, the quest for algorithmic transparency aligns with the aforementioned term and converges on the proposition of 'explainability,' as described by Frank Pasquale as a fourth law of robotics for the law. It is not about knowing what 'artificial intelligence' is used and what it does. The challenge lies in seeking an ontological response, grounded in the identification of the suitability of the preventive and precautionary functions of civil liability to assess the expectations placed on each participant in the activity, especially regarding the predictability of potential consequences. It is legitimate for individuals to demand an explanation on behalf of non-humans or even on behalf of other humans lacking cognition.