> The conclusion that numerate people are coming to regarding algorithms for court sentencing is quite different from what you describe. Okay, that may have n

> The conclusion that numerate people are coming to regarding algorithms for court sentencing is quite different from what you describe. Okay, that may have not been the best example to reference. > Human processes just add additional bias, e.g. the editorial slant that Vox wants Facebook to add, or the (alleged) bias that Facebook's human editors added before Facebook went all algorithmic. But how you can craft an algorithm that takes human processes (clickbait, investigative journalism, breaking news, photos of cats) and provides an output free of biases? Given the fluid nature of the input biases, is it even possible to craft an algorithm that accounts for those biases without adding in (or substituting) other biases? What is the "objective standard" by which you measure and correct the input biases? Just because there's an algorithm doesn't mean the output is bias-free.