> 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 ha

> 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.