2 ms·

> 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 recid

> 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.
    - denzil_correa 10y ago
      > Algorithms remove the latter by standardizing the logic Standardizing logic does not equate to elimination of bias. From some bias (due to humans), we may move to standardized bias (due to algorithms). I would not call that a win.
      - jdmichal 10y ago
        You are arguing against things that aren't being said. Of course there may still be bias in the standardized system; no one proposed that standardized systems remove bias. See the SAT for further details. If the system is open, then the bias can be found through statistical analysis with experimental data. If the system is closed -- as it must be in human logic -- then the bias can only be discovered through actual outputs after enough runs have accumulated. In this case, that means people's lives are being affected by something that we can't necessarily tell is biased until its too late to prevent it. So yes, moving to standardized logic is a win against bias, because standardized logic can be opened and analyzed and modified.
        denzil_correa 10y ago
        > So yes, moving to standardized logic is a win against bias, because standardized logic can be opened and analyzed and modified. The algorithm in the original article is not open and generally, that is the problem.
        jdmichal 10y ago
        Which is exactly why I said: > 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.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]

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.
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    > Algorithms remove the latter by standardizing the logic Standardizing logic does not equate to elimination of bias. From some bias (due to humans), we may move to standardized bias (due to algorithms). I would not call that a win.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      You are arguing against things that aren't being said. Of course there may still be bias in the standardized system; no one proposed that standardized systems remove bias. See the SAT for further details. If the system is open, then the bias can be found through statistical analysis with experimental data. If the system is closed -- as it must be in human logic -- then the bias can only be discovered through actual outputs after enough runs have accumulated. In this case, that means people's lives are being affected by something that we can't necessarily tell is biased until its too late to prevent it. So yes, moving to standardized logic is a win against bias, because standardized logic can be opened and analyzed and modified.
      - denzil_correa 10y ago
        > So yes, moving to standardized logic is a win against bias, because standardized logic can be opened and analyzed and modified. The algorithm in the original article is not open and generally, that is the problem.
        jdmichal 10y ago
        Which is exactly why I said: > 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.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]