Full question: By December 31, 2027, will the UK Parliament pass an amendment to the Interpretation Act 1978 that explicitly defines 'person' or 'officer' (or an equivalent term used for statutory duties) to include a 'computer system' or 'artificial intelligence' for the purpose of administrative decision-making?

Question Title

Will the UK Parliament pass an amendment to the Interpretation Act 1978 by December 31, 2027, to explicitly define 'person' or 'officer' as including a 'computer system' or 'artificial intelligence'?

Background

In the United Kingdom, the Interpretation Act 1978 is a foundational piece of legislation that provides standard definitions and rules for interpreting other Acts of Parliament. Currently, Schedule 1 of the Act defines a "person" to include "a body of persons corporate or unincorporate" [legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/schedule/1]. It does not explicitly include non-human entities like computer systems or artificial intelligence (AI) within the definition of a 'person' or 'officer'.

Legal scholars and policy experts have identified a "delegation barrier" in administrative law. This barrier arises when a statute requires a specific human (an 'officer' or 'person') to exercise discretion or make a decision. Under the Carltona principle, powers vested in a Minister may be exercised by their officials, but legal ambiguity persists regarding whether such powers can be lawfully delegated to a fully automated system without a human "rubberstamping" the decision.

While the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (which received Royal Assent on June 19, 2025) modernized rules for automated decision-making (ADM) by amending the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, it focused on data privacy safeguards and lawful bases for processing rather than redefining the legal personality of decision-makers across all statutes. Proposals have emerged to amend the Interpretation Act 1978 directly to make it "lawful by default" for AI to perform functions currently reserved for human "persons" or "officers," thereby removing the need for human intervention in every administrative instance.

Resolution Criteria

This question will resolve as YES if, between April 8, 2026, and 23:59 UTC on December 31, 2027, an Act of Parliament receives Royal Assent that contains an amendment to the Interpretation Act 1978 (or a direct successor to that specific Act) which:

1. Explicitly adds "computer system", "artificial intelligence", "automated system", or a semantic equivalent to the definition of "person" or "officer" (including "public officer" or "officer of [a specific department]"); OR

2. Adds a new provision to the Interpretation Act 1978 stating that references to a "person" or "officer" in other legislation shall be construed to include an AI or computer system for the purpose of exercising statutory functions or administrative decision-making.

Clarifications:

• The amendment must be to the Interpretation Act 1978 itself (or its direct successor). Standalone provisions in other sector-specific Acts (e.g., a new Finance Act) that only apply to those specific Acts do not count.

• The inclusion must be explicit in the legislative text. Broad phrasing that is later interpreted by a court to include AI does not count unless the text of the Act is amended to be explicit.

• If the Interpretation Act 1978 is repealed and replaced by a new "Interpretation Act," the same criteria apply to the successor Act.

Resolution Source

The primary source for resolution will be the official UK legislation database at legislation.gov.uk. Secondary verification can be conducted via the UK Parliament Bill Tracker (bills.parliament.uk) to confirm the date of Royal Assent and the final text of the enacted bill.

Forecast Rationale

Time left: 632 days (~21 months). Status quo is NO: there is no enacted amendment to the Interpretation Act 1978 that explicitly treats AI or a computer system as a person or officer. Scope check: I think the odds are much higher that the UK passes more sector-specific AI or automated decision-making rules than that it amends this foundational interpretive statute in the exact way required here. Why NO: this is a sweeping constitutional-style change to a rarely overhauled definitions act, and legislators can solve most practical delegation problems with narrower, domain-specific legislation instead. Why YES: the delegation barrier could become politically salient if the government wants lawful-by-default automation across departments, creating pressure for a general fix rather than piecemeal exceptions. Bet check: 4% is about 1 in 25; I am roughly indifferent between YES at 4 cents and NO at 96 cents.

Full analysis: decomposition, probabilistic components, and multi-method reconciliation

Generated by the Paper-to-Forecast pipeline — an automated system that transforms research papers into calibrated forecasting questions.