Position: AI’s growing due process problem

Sunayana Rane
Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 267:82062-82071, 2025.

Abstract

AI systems are now ubiquitous in real-world decision-making. However, their use is often invisible and almost always difficult to understand for the ordinary people who now come into contact with AI regularly. As these AI-driven decision-making systems increasingly replace human counterparts, our ability to understand the reasons behind a decision, and to contest that decision fairly, is quickly being eroded. In the United States legal system due process includes the right to understand the reasons for certain major decisions and the right to openly contest those decisions. Everyone is entitled to due process under the law, and human decision-makers have been required to adhere to due process when making many important decisions that are now slowly being relegated to AI systems. Using two recent court decisions as a foundation, this paper takes the position that AI in its current form cannot guarantee due process, and therefore cannot and (should not) be used to make decisions that should be subject to due process. The supporting legal analysis investigates how the current lack of technical answers about the interpretability and causality of AI decisions, coupled with extreme trade secret protections severely limiting any exercise of the small amount of technical knowledge we do have, serve as a fatal anti-due-process combination. Throughout the analysis, this paper explains why technical researchers’ involvement is vital to informing the legal process and restoring due process protections.

Cite this Paper


BibTeX
@InProceedings{pmlr-v267-rane25b, title = {Position: {AI}’s growing due process problem}, author = {Rane, Sunayana}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning}, pages = {82062--82071}, year = {2025}, editor = {Singh, Aarti and Fazel, Maryam and Hsu, Daniel and Lacoste-Julien, Simon and Berkenkamp, Felix and Maharaj, Tegan and Wagstaff, Kiri and Zhu, Jerry}, volume = {267}, series = {Proceedings of Machine Learning Research}, month = {13--19 Jul}, publisher = {PMLR}, pdf = {https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mlresearch/v267/main/assets/rane25b/rane25b.pdf}, url = {https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/rane25b.html}, abstract = {AI systems are now ubiquitous in real-world decision-making. However, their use is often invisible and almost always difficult to understand for the ordinary people who now come into contact with AI regularly. As these AI-driven decision-making systems increasingly replace human counterparts, our ability to understand the reasons behind a decision, and to contest that decision fairly, is quickly being eroded. In the United States legal system due process includes the right to understand the reasons for certain major decisions and the right to openly contest those decisions. Everyone is entitled to due process under the law, and human decision-makers have been required to adhere to due process when making many important decisions that are now slowly being relegated to AI systems. Using two recent court decisions as a foundation, this paper takes the position that AI in its current form cannot guarantee due process, and therefore cannot and (should not) be used to make decisions that should be subject to due process. The supporting legal analysis investigates how the current lack of technical answers about the interpretability and causality of AI decisions, coupled with extreme trade secret protections severely limiting any exercise of the small amount of technical knowledge we do have, serve as a fatal anti-due-process combination. Throughout the analysis, this paper explains why technical researchers’ involvement is vital to informing the legal process and restoring due process protections.} }
Endnote
%0 Conference Paper %T Position: AI’s growing due process problem %A Sunayana Rane %B Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning %C Proceedings of Machine Learning Research %D 2025 %E Aarti Singh %E Maryam Fazel %E Daniel Hsu %E Simon Lacoste-Julien %E Felix Berkenkamp %E Tegan Maharaj %E Kiri Wagstaff %E Jerry Zhu %F pmlr-v267-rane25b %I PMLR %P 82062--82071 %U https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/rane25b.html %V 267 %X AI systems are now ubiquitous in real-world decision-making. However, their use is often invisible and almost always difficult to understand for the ordinary people who now come into contact with AI regularly. As these AI-driven decision-making systems increasingly replace human counterparts, our ability to understand the reasons behind a decision, and to contest that decision fairly, is quickly being eroded. In the United States legal system due process includes the right to understand the reasons for certain major decisions and the right to openly contest those decisions. Everyone is entitled to due process under the law, and human decision-makers have been required to adhere to due process when making many important decisions that are now slowly being relegated to AI systems. Using two recent court decisions as a foundation, this paper takes the position that AI in its current form cannot guarantee due process, and therefore cannot and (should not) be used to make decisions that should be subject to due process. The supporting legal analysis investigates how the current lack of technical answers about the interpretability and causality of AI decisions, coupled with extreme trade secret protections severely limiting any exercise of the small amount of technical knowledge we do have, serve as a fatal anti-due-process combination. Throughout the analysis, this paper explains why technical researchers’ involvement is vital to informing the legal process and restoring due process protections.
APA
Rane, S.. (2025). Position: AI’s growing due process problem. Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 267:82062-82071 Available from https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/rane25b.html.

Related Material