3 ms·

It's not racially biased. It doesn't even use race as a feature. It just so happens that blacks statistically have worse criminal records, and people with worse

It's not racially biased. It doesn't even use race as a feature. It just so happens that blacks statistically have worse criminal records, and people with worse criminal records tend to commit more crimes in the future. A white person with the same record is not treated any differently. And the decision is based on objective data and statistics, not flawed human judgement. Human judges are incredibly biased and their predictions are barely better than chance. It's insanity that humans were ever allowed to make important decisions like this.

nl 10y ago
It just so happens that blacks statistically have worse criminal records, and people with worse criminal records tend to commit more crimes in the future. Right, but there is plenty of evidence that this (the statistically worse criminal records) is an artefact of sentencing[1]. Using that biased feature as an input is going to make it worse: the algorithm will recommend higher sentences because previously blacks had previously had more severe sentences. This is almost the exact definition of implicit bias[2] [1] eg http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873244320045783044... but plenty of other examples. [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Well first of all that article is exactly why we should use algorithms. Judges' sentences are arbitrary and biased, and not very correlated with the actual degree of risk. We should set sentences algorithmically, based on how likely the person is to commit a crime again if they go free. Not how the judge feels that day. Second, a criminal record is the crimes you committed in the past, not the sentence a judge gave. The algorithm would see your record and determine your level of risk, along with other objective factors. The algorithm has no bias. It sees the data and uses it to make the most accurate predictions possible. It doesn't care about race, and it is blind to it. A white criminal with the same record, should be given the same prediction as a similar black criminal. And the predictions it makes should be pretty accurate and objective.

nl 10y ago

It just so happens that blacks statistically have worse criminal records, and people with worse criminal records tend to commit more crimes in the future. Right, but there is plenty of evidence that this (the statistically worse criminal records) is an artefact of sentencing[1]. Using that biased feature as an input is going to make it worse: the algorithm will recommend higher sentences because previously blacks had previously had more severe sentences. This is almost the exact definition of implicit bias[2] [1] eg http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873244320045783044... but plenty of other examples. [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/

Houshalter 10y ago
Well first of all that article is exactly why we should use algorithms. Judges' sentences are arbitrary and biased, and not very correlated with the actual degree of risk. We should set sentences algorithmically, based on how likely the person is to commit a crime again if they go free. Not how the judge feels that day. Second, a criminal record is the crimes you committed in the past, not the sentence a judge gave. The algorithm would see your record and determine your level of risk, along with other objective factors. The algorithm has no bias. It sees the data and uses it to make the most accurate predictions possible. It doesn't care about race, and it is blind to it. A white criminal with the same record, should be given the same prediction as a similar black criminal. And the predictions it makes should be pretty accurate and objective.