3 ms·

I generally agree with you. I see nothing different here than what's done every day by insurance companies looking to assess individual risk. If an algorithm ca

I generally agree with you. I see nothing different here than what's done every day by insurance companies looking to assess individual risk. If an algorithm can decide how likely I am to be at fault in a wreck, why can't one decide my chances of recidivism?

hackuser 10y ago
Government is held to higher standards than businesses, because government can take your freedom and property. If you don't like your insurance rates, switch to another carrier; the insurance company won't imprison you. As another example, government can't stop you from saying whatever you like (freedom of speech), but your employer can restrict what you say at work.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  > Government is held to higher standards than businesses, because government can take your freedom and property. So, to be clear, a higher standard means the government is not allowed to use data-driven algorithms to make decisions? Keep in mind that judges already had and continue to have latitude to independently conclude the same thing the algorithm does and act appropriately. Or is your disagreement with the closed nature of the algorithms? Which is an argument, but one that should also be applied to insurance companies, especially those brokering mandatory products like car and health. EDIT: To copy from my other reply: If the problem is in the openness of the decision, then let's open up everything. If the problem is in making data-driven, algorithmic decisions in the first place... I'm not sure that's something I can get behind.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > a higher standard means the government is not allowed to use data-driven algorithms to make decisions? Keep in mind that judges already had and continue to have latitude to independently conclude the same thing the algorithm does and act appropriately. No, I generally agree with you. However, I'm very concerned that judges will rely too heavily on the computer, either through laziness or through misunderstanding the limitations of an algorithm. > is your disagreement with the closed nature of the algorithms? Mostly, yes. IMO: * A spec, which the code meets, must be published. The spec should be comprehensible to non-technical readers - at least judges and lawyers. (EDIT: The spec governs, not the code that implements it.) * The code also must be open and written to some standards of coding comprehensibility and documentation, so others can verify that it meets the spec. If they just open source some code, it's useless. Even experts such as software developers probably aren't going to quickly grasp someone else's code. > Which is an argument, but one that should also be applied to insurance companies, especially those brokering mandatory products like car and health. I tend to agree, but I think it's still a matter of degree.
denzil_correa 10y ago
> If an algorithm can decide how likely I am to be at fault in a wreck, why can't one decide my chances of recidivism? Alternatively, If an algorithm for recidivism is questioned, why should the algorithm for insurance also not be questioned? Two wrongs do not make a right.
- GFischer 10y ago
  The main difference with this case is that you can shop around for different insurance, and different insurance companies use different algorithms to determine risk. You can, of course, question them. In many cases they're open source, they're usually government-audited, and in some countries, even government mandated. Edit: hackuser beat me to the point - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11957351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11957351
- jdmichal 10y ago
  I agree with you completely. If the problem is in the openness of the decision, then let's open up everything. If the problem is in making data-driven, algorithmic decisions in the first place... I'm not sure that's something I can get behind.
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    Algorithmic decisions aren't made in vacuum. These decisions are made via human inputs which may be biased.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      That's not really relevant. These decisions are going to be made anyway, and until we have general AI that means human inputs and often something even worse -- human logic. Algorithms remove the latter by standardizing the logic; that's a win in my book. An excerpt from the other thread: > Keep in mind that judges already had and continue to have latitude to independently conclude the same thing the algorithm does and act appropriately.

hackuser 10y ago

Government is held to higher standards than businesses, because government can take your freedom and property. If you don't like your insurance rates, switch to another carrier; the insurance company won't imprison you. As another example, government can't stop you from saying whatever you like (freedom of speech), but your employer can restrict what you say at work.

jdmichal 10y ago
> Government is held to higher standards than businesses, because government can take your freedom and property. So, to be clear, a higher standard means the government is not allowed to use data-driven algorithms to make decisions? Keep in mind that judges already had and continue to have latitude to independently conclude the same thing the algorithm does and act appropriately. Or is your disagreement with the closed nature of the algorithms? Which is an argument, but one that should also be applied to insurance companies, especially those brokering mandatory products like car and health. EDIT: To copy from my other reply: If the problem is in the openness of the decision, then let's open up everything. If the problem is in making data-driven, algorithmic decisions in the first place... I'm not sure that's something I can get behind.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > a higher standard means the government is not allowed to use data-driven algorithms to make decisions? Keep in mind that judges already had and continue to have latitude to independently conclude the same thing the algorithm does and act appropriately. No, I generally agree with you. However, I'm very concerned that judges will rely too heavily on the computer, either through laziness or through misunderstanding the limitations of an algorithm. > is your disagreement with the closed nature of the algorithms? Mostly, yes. IMO: * A spec, which the code meets, must be published. The spec should be comprehensible to non-technical readers - at least judges and lawyers. (EDIT: The spec governs, not the code that implements it.) * The code also must be open and written to some standards of coding comprehensibility and documentation, so others can verify that it meets the spec. If they just open source some code, it's useless. Even experts such as software developers probably aren't going to quickly grasp someone else's code. > Which is an argument, but one that should also be applied to insurance companies, especially those brokering mandatory products like car and health. I tend to agree, but I think it's still a matter of degree.

denzil_correa 10y ago

> If an algorithm can decide how likely I am to be at fault in a wreck, why can't one decide my chances of recidivism? Alternatively, If an algorithm for recidivism is questioned, why should the algorithm for insurance also not be questioned? Two wrongs do not make a right.

GFischer 10y ago
The main difference with this case is that you can shop around for different insurance, and different insurance companies use different algorithms to determine risk. You can, of course, question them. In many cases they're open source, they're usually government-audited, and in some countries, even government mandated. Edit: hackuser beat me to the point - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11957351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11957351
jdmichal 10y ago
I agree with you completely. If the problem is in the openness of the decision, then let's open up everything. If the problem is in making data-driven, algorithmic decisions in the first place... I'm not sure that's something I can get behind.
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  Algorithmic decisions aren't made in vacuum. These decisions are made via human inputs which may be biased.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    That's not really relevant. These decisions are going to be made anyway, and until we have general AI that means human inputs and often something even worse -- human logic. Algorithms remove the latter by standardizing the logic; that's a win in my book. An excerpt from the other thread: > Keep in mind that judges already had and continue to have latitude to independently conclude the same thing the algorithm does and act appropriately.