3 ms·
> amplifier for the status quo While there are respectable ML folks making those criticisms, the commentary I've read seems more click-bait than science. ML c
by xapata 10y ago
> amplifier for the status quo
While there are respectable ML folks making those criticisms, the commentary I've read seems more click-bait than science.
ML can be used just as traditional statistics to make causal inferences and predict the effect of intervention. There's nothing about ML that reinforces status quo more than traditional statistics, let alone case studies (aka anecdotes) or "common sense."
- Eridrus 10y agoWhile this is definitely a clickbaity topic, and algorithms are usually better than people there are still real issues that come from seeking accuracy, particularly since real world data is so often biased to begin with. Google had an interesting take on how you could control for some dimensions of bias here https://research.google.com/bigpicture/attacking-discrimination-in-ml/ https://research.google.com/bigpicture/attacking-discriminat...
- snowwrestler 10y ago> There's nothing about ML that reinforces status quo more than traditional statistics Yes but that is not how ML is marketed. It's marketed as way better than traditional statistics, and soon even better than humans. But reality is that a trained system is only as good as the data used to train it.
- xapata 10y ago> only as good But ML can improve upon other methods of interpreting that (biased) data. Thus, in some ways better than traditional statistics and non-mathematical human intuition.