+1 Recommend
1 collections

      If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

      Prometheus is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journalsFurthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Woodrow Barfield and Ugo Pagallo, Advanced Introduction to Law and Artificial Intelligence reviewed by Carolin Kemper

      1 , * ,
      Pluto Journals


            Author and article information

            Pluto Journals
            28 March 2022
            : 37
            : 4
            : 404-408
            [1 ]German Research Institute for Public Administration 67346 Speyer, Germany
            Author notes
            [* ] Correspondence: Carolin Kemper ( kemper@ 123456foev-speyer.de )

            All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

            Page count
            Pages: 5

            Advanced Introduction to Law and Artificial Intelligence by (2020) Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 208pp., hardback £85, ISBN 978 178990 5144.

            Book reviews

            Computer science,Arts,Social & Behavioral Sciences,Law,History,Economics


            1. and (2018) Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

            2. (2014) Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

            3. and (2011) A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

            4. , , , , , , , , , , and (2017) ‘Accountability of AI under the law: the role of explanation’, arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.01134.

            5. and (2017) ‘Slave to the algorithm: why a right to an explanation is probably not the remedy you are looking for’, Duke Law and Technology Review, 16, pp.18–84.

            6. (2017) ‘Artificial communication? The production of contingency by algorithms’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 46, pp.249–65.

            7. (2018) Robot Rights, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

            8. and (2019) ‘Regulating bot speech’, University of California Los Angeles Law Review, 66, pp.988–1028.

            9. and (2017) ‘Playing with the data: what legal scholars should learn about machine learning’, University of California Davis Law Review, 51, pp.653–717.

            10. and (2016) ‘Siri-ously? Free speech rights and artificial intelligence’, Northwestern University Law Review, 110, pp.1169–94.

            11. (2019) The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

            12. (2021) ‘OpenAI opens GPT-3 for everyone’, Medium, 20 November, available at https://towardsdatascience.com/openai-opens-gpt-3-for-everyone-fb7fed309f6 (accessed November 2021 ).

            13. (2020) ‘Freedom of expression in the age of online platforms: the promise and pitfalls of a human rights-based approach to content moderation, Fordham International Law Journal, 43, pp.939–1006.

            14. (2009) ‘Cognitive automata and the law electronic contracting and the intentionality of software agents’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 17, pp.253–90.

            15. (2014) ‘Machine learning and law’, Washington Law Review, 89, 1, 86–115.

            16. (2017) ‘An FDA for algorithms’, Administrative Law Review, 69, 1, pp.83–123.

            17. , and (2018) ‘Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: automated decisions and the GDPR’, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 31, 2, pp.841–87.


            Comment on this article