Whose Bias is it, Anyway? The Need for a Four-Eyes Principle in AI-Driven Competion Law Proceedings

Artificial Intelligence (hereafter, ‘AI’) systems are widely adopted by public administrations. Competition law does not escape the rule. This is unsurprising, given AI systems promise to address well-documented flaws in human decision-making, e.g. arbitrariness or bias. What is more, AI systems carries the potential to strengthen ex officio investigations. AI-driven cartel screening flags indicators of collusion that then trigger the need for further investigation. This Article does not discard hat AI systems increase effectiveness that in turn increase substantive fairness. Rather, it questions whether increasing effectiveness with AI systems has an impact on procedural fairness. The argument is that although the use of algorithms increases procedural fairness by removing noise and cognitive biases from the decision-making process, the overall impact on procedural fairness remains far from clear given that the introduction of AI systems in public administration might perniciously generates new type of biases or harmful behaviours. This Article suggests that a four-eyes principle is a workable solution to mitigate that pitfall.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Liège)
Published
2024-12-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/796
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Whose Bias is it, Anyway? The Need for a Four-Eyes Principle in AI-Driven Competion Law Proceedings

Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Liège)
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Whose Bias is it, Anyway? The Need for a Four-Eyes Principle in AI-Driven Competion Law Proceedings

article en

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (hereafter, ‘AI’) systems are widely adopted by public administrations. Competition law does not escape the rule. This is unsurprising, given AI systems promise to address well-documented flaws in human decision-making, e.g. arbitrariness or bias. What is more, AI systems carries the potential to strengthen ex officio investigations. AI-driven cartel screening flags indicators of collusion that then trigger the need for further investigation. This Article does not discard hat AI systems increase effectiveness that in turn increase substantive fairness. Rather, it questions whether increasing effectiveness with AI systems has an impact on procedural fairness. The argument is that although the use of algorithms increases procedural fairness by removing noise and cognitive biases from the decision-making process, the overall impact on procedural fairness remains far from clear given that the introduction of AI systems in public administration might perniciously generates new type of biases or harmful behaviours. This Article suggests that a four-eyes principle is a workable solution to mitigate that pitfall.

Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Liège)
University of Liège (BE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.