Non-Determinism and the Lawlessness of ML Code
Legal literature on machine learning (ML) tends to focus on harms, and as a
result tends to reason about individual model outcomes and summary error rates.
This focus on model-level outcomes and errors has masked important aspects of
ML that are rooted in its inherent non-determinism. We show that the effects of
non-determinism, and consequently its implications for the law, instead become
clearer from the perspective of reasoning about ML outputs as probability
distributions over possible outcomes. This distributional viewpoint accounts
for non-determinism by emphasizing the possible outcomes of ML. Importantly,
this type of reasoning is not exclusive with current legal reasoning; it
complements (and in fact can strengthen) analyses concerning individual,
concrete outcomes for specific automated decisions. By clarifying the important
role of non-determinism, we demonstrate that ML code falls outside of the
cyberlaw frame of treating "code as law," as this frame assumes that code is
deterministic. We conclude with a brief discussion of what work ML can do to
constrain the potentially harm-inducing effects of non-determinism, and we
clarify where the law must do work to bridge the gap between its current
individual-outcome focus and the distributional approach that we recommend.