4 ms·
Deferring decisions to an algorithm doesn't absolve the owner from responsibility for its actions. If the consequences are unknown, why should it be allowed to
by 7373737373 9y ago
Deferring decisions to an algorithm doesn't absolve the owner from responsibility for its actions. If the consequences are unknown, why should it be allowed to use it?
- CaptSpify 9y agoCouldn't that also imply that someone else would need to view the algorithm to verify it's intent?
- PeterisP 9y agoFor things that are crimes only if the intent is there, it certainly does absolve the owner from responsibility. There's no duty to preserve everything that might be evidence in some manner (because, really, everything might be) - if evidence gets destroyed as a byproduct of normal operations, that's not prohibited.
- fastball 9y agoBecause if the consequences are unknown, there is no intent, and intent is necessary for complicity. If Google/people at Google made an algorithm to intentionally delete criminal evidence, that would qualify. Having an algorithm that deletes lots of things, and happens to delete evidence does not.