3 ms·

I also remember a company that extended loans, but all ober the world. They were using analytics based on social media, browser fingerprinting, etc. They had s

by blub 10y ago

I also remember a company that extended loans, but all ober the world. They were using analytics based on social media, browser fingerprinting, etc. They had some cases where they had no idea why the algorithm rejected some loan applications and then analysed the logs to find out why. It turned out that there was a correlation between specific system fonts and defaulting ob loans. Giving power over people to opaque algorithms and hustler start-ups is foolish.

visarga 10y ago
That's why algorithms that judge people should be held to public scrutiny. There should be validation tests to ensure the algorithm is fair. There should be error analysis, performed by third parties. Each judged human should be entitled to a feedback report to show how we were rated and why. It's not that I agree with this application, but it's inevitable that we will be judged by algorithms and we need to be sure they don't act in absurd ways. Public outcry should keep them in check.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  The first problem is that the alternative is far less fair. Humans are hundreds of times more biased than algorithms. Judges give much harsher sentences after they have eaten lunch. Ugly people are discriminated against far more than attractive people. People of different political affiliations are discriminated against more than race is. And when asked to make predictions about candidates, we are only barely better than random (but think we are much better.) The second is that unfairness isn't a problem. Whatever has the most utility should be preferred. If one person is worse off and 99 are better off, it's a net good.
Houshalter 10y ago
This isn't an argument against it. So what if font size correlates with bad loans? Then it is a feature that should be used and will reduce the number of bad loans.

3 ms·

I also remember a company that extended loans, but all ober the world. They were using analytics based on social media, browser fingerprinting, etc. They had s

by blub 10y ago

visarga 10y ago
That's why algorithms that judge people should be held to public scrutiny. There should be validation tests to ensure the algorithm is fair. There should be error analysis, performed by third parties. Each judged human should be entitled to a feedback report to show how we were rated and why. It's not that I agree with this application, but it's inevitable that we will be judged by algorithms and we need to be sure they don't act in absurd ways. Public outcry should keep them in check.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  The first problem is that the alternative is far less fair. Humans are hundreds of times more biased than algorithms. Judges give much harsher sentences after they have eaten lunch. Ugly people are discriminated against far more than attractive people. People of different political affiliations are discriminated against more than race is. And when asked to make predictions about candidates, we are only barely better than random (but think we are much better.) The second is that unfairness isn't a problem. Whatever has the most utility should be preferred. If one person is worse off and 99 are better off, it's a net good.
Houshalter 10y ago
This isn't an argument against it. So what if font size correlates with bad loans? Then it is a feature that should be used and will reduce the number of bad loans.