2 ms·

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]

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]