4 ms·

I wonder if the algorithm is evidence-based, and learns from the results of prior decisions. In which case it is possible it would eventually discover that in

by bmh_ca 9y ago

I wonder if the algorithm is evidence-based, and learns from the results of prior decisions. In which case it is possible it would eventually discover that in the USA incarceration is very strongly linked to recidivism. It follows that the algorithm might refuse to incarcerate many convicts. Which is arguably exactly what the algorithm should do, namely what politicians will/can not: employ evidence to advance the methods and improve the outcomes of the criminal justice system.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
The problem with that is that criminality has it's own positive feedback loop. More crime in an area -> more cops -> more convictions for little stuff -> more big sentences handed out -> more lives ruined -> more crime -> goto start.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > more convictions for little stuff Seems like an easier way to break that loop is to decriminalize the "little stuff" instead of capriciously enforcing it. No algorithm is going to be able to do that.
EliRivers 9y ago
and learns from the results of prior decisions And is that fair? If the last ten guys to come through who looked like me should have had harsher sentences, is it fair that I get that harsher sentence?
hackuser 9y ago
> what the algorithm should do, namely what politicians will/can not It's dangerous to imagine that the algorithms won't be used just as politically as anything else. The difference is, instead of a mostly transparent process in a legislature, the decisions will be made between powerful people and software developers.
- bmh_ca 9y ago
  As someone who has drafted legislation, I can say with some confidence that if the only difference is the introduction of software programmers, that is positive as they are - on whole - more likely to bear a sense of reason and popular morality than those writing legislation right now. With the introduction of explicit algorithms we also hopefully will have the advantage of better data collection, which arguably can make it harder to justify changes that operate in contrast to stated principles. (Contrast much legislation that serves purposes entirely orthogonal to their stated intent - and which survive because of the lack of data and accountability that would reveal their abject failures at all but their ulterior motives)
  - hackuser 9y ago
    > software programmers, that is positive as they are - on whole - more likely to bear a sense of reason and popular morality than those writing legislation right now Any time we think some group of people is going to be naturally above human frailties, we are wrong; it never works. We find software programmers to be more reasonable because they are more like us, and also we are imagining ideal hypothetical developers - plenty of real ones should be nowhere near making laws for others. Everything is ultimately politics. If there is power in algorithms, then those who desire to influence things will influence the algorithms. It's just a less transparent mechanism.
    - bmh_ca 9y ago
      The supposition that software programmers are more ethical than the wealthy is based on the observation Paul Piffs coined as the "Asshole Effect". You will note my choice of words "on whole", which essentially means a statistical aggregation. But you are absolutely right that everything is politics. I'm not sure I agree about the transparency. Point of interest: You probably know more about the technical exploits the CIA and NSA had than the legal and political mechanisms that permitted them to come about - and almost certainly never will.

by bmh_ca 9y ago

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

The problem with that is that criminality has it's own positive feedback loop. More crime in an area -> more cops -> more convictions for little stuff -> more big sentences handed out -> more lives ruined -> more crime -> goto start.

humanrebar 9y ago
> more convictions for little stuff Seems like an easier way to break that loop is to decriminalize the "little stuff" instead of capriciously enforcing it. No algorithm is going to be able to do that.

EliRivers 9y ago

and learns from the results of prior decisions And is that fair? If the last ten guys to come through who looked like me should have had harsher sentences, is it fair that I get that harsher sentence?

hackuser 9y ago

> what the algorithm should do, namely what politicians will/can not It's dangerous to imagine that the algorithms won't be used just as politically as anything else. The difference is, instead of a mostly transparent process in a legislature, the decisions will be made between powerful people and software developers.

bmh_ca 9y ago
As someone who has drafted legislation, I can say with some confidence that if the only difference is the introduction of software programmers, that is positive as they are - on whole - more likely to bear a sense of reason and popular morality than those writing legislation right now. With the introduction of explicit algorithms we also hopefully will have the advantage of better data collection, which arguably can make it harder to justify changes that operate in contrast to stated principles. (Contrast much legislation that serves purposes entirely orthogonal to their stated intent - and which survive because of the lack of data and accountability that would reveal their abject failures at all but their ulterior motives)
- hackuser 9y ago
  > software programmers, that is positive as they are - on whole - more likely to bear a sense of reason and popular morality than those writing legislation right now Any time we think some group of people is going to be naturally above human frailties, we are wrong; it never works. We find software programmers to be more reasonable because they are more like us, and also we are imagining ideal hypothetical developers - plenty of real ones should be nowhere near making laws for others. Everything is ultimately politics. If there is power in algorithms, then those who desire to influence things will influence the algorithms. It's just a less transparent mechanism.
  - bmh_ca 9y ago
    The supposition that software programmers are more ethical than the wealthy is based on the observation Paul Piffs coined as the "Asshole Effect". You will note my choice of words "on whole", which essentially means a statistical aggregation. But you are absolutely right that everything is politics. I'm not sure I agree about the transparency. Point of interest: You probably know more about the technical exploits the CIA and NSA had than the legal and political mechanisms that permitted them to come about - and almost certainly never will.