> Surely you don't believe race is a strong predictor after controlling for all the hundred other things? It can be if you select the right data, algorithms, a

> Surely you don't believe race is a strong predictor after controlling for all the hundred other things? It can be if you select the right data, algorithms, and analysis method. > Algorithms are not prejudiced That's correct. However, the selection of algorithm and input data is heavily biased. You're acting like there is some sort of formula that is automagically available for any particular social question, with unbiased and error free input data. In reality, data is often biased and a proxy for prejudice. > It still isn't treating a poor white person different than a poor black person. I suggest spending a lot more time exploring how people actually use available tools. You seem aware of how humans bring biased judgment, but you are assuming that the creation of an algorithmic tool and use of that tool in practice will somehow be free of that same human bias? Adding a complex algorithm makes it easy to hide prejudice; it doesn't do much to eliminate prejudice. > Its not treating the group of poor people unfairly. Yes, it is. The entire point of this type of tool is to create a new way we can pre-judge someone based not on their individual behavior, but on a separate group of people that happens to share an arbitrary set of attributes and behaviors. The problems of racism, sexism, and other types of prejudice don't go away when you target a more complicated set of people. You're still pre-judging people based on group association instead of treating them as an individual.