3 ms·

Related: "The era of blind faith in big data must end" | TED Talk | https://www.ted.com/talks/cathy_o_neil_the_era_of_blind_faith_in_big_data_must_end https:/

by pella 9y ago

Related: "The era of blind faith in big data must end" | TED Talk | https://www.ted.com/talks/cathy_o_neil_the_era_of_blind_faith_in_big_data_must_end https://www.ted.com/talks/cathy_o_neil_the_era_of_blind_fait... "Algorithms decide who gets a loan, who gets a job interview, who gets insurance and much more -- but they don't automatically make things fair. Mathematician and data scientist Cathy O'Neil coined a term for algorithms that are secret, important and harmful: "weapons of math destruction." Learn more about the hidden agendas behind the formulas." ... "Algorithms are everywhere. They sort and separate the winners from the losers. The winners get the job or a good credit card offer. The losers don't even get an interview or they pay more for insurance. We're being scored with secret formulas that we don't understand that often don't have systems of appeal. That begs the question: What if the algorithms are wrong?"

icelancer 9y ago
These same algorithms run in our brains with far more flawed edge cases than big data. Not that I am defending blind use of "algorithms," but that word is a boogeyman at best.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  That's why it's important to make sure people with significant variety in their backgrounds are involved in the process. Otherwise you run into situations where, for example, a team of designers doesn't discover their motion activated soap dispenser doesn't work on people with dark skin until after it's been produced, sold, and used.
- panic 9y ago
  We can talk about our decisions, explain them, and revise them if someone convinces us we're wrong. That's very different from a system that only outputs a vector of probabilities.
- sidlls 9y ago
  No, "these same algorithms" don't "run in our brains". Our brains produce thoughts in ways that we don't even have the slightest understanding of. We have conjecture and some observations (e.g. electric signal monitors) that only scratch the surface of describing what the end result of a "thought" looks like. The comparison of how humans think and human intellect in general with poorly understood applied computational statistics really has gone too far. Now, if you mean to say that humans themselves have biases and "wrong" behavior, that's a different matter.

by pella 9y ago

icelancer 9y ago

These same algorithms run in our brains with far more flawed edge cases than big data. Not that I am defending blind use of "algorithms," but that word is a boogeyman at best.

rainbowmverse 9y ago
That's why it's important to make sure people with significant variety in their backgrounds are involved in the process. Otherwise you run into situations where, for example, a team of designers doesn't discover their motion activated soap dispenser doesn't work on people with dark skin until after it's been produced, sold, and used.
panic 9y ago
We can talk about our decisions, explain them, and revise them if someone convinces us we're wrong. That's very different from a system that only outputs a vector of probabilities.
sidlls 9y ago
No, "these same algorithms" don't "run in our brains". Our brains produce thoughts in ways that we don't even have the slightest understanding of. We have conjecture and some observations (e.g. electric signal monitors) that only scratch the surface of describing what the end result of a "thought" looks like. The comparison of how humans think and human intellect in general with poorly understood applied computational statistics really has gone too far. Now, if you mean to say that humans themselves have biases and "wrong" behavior, that's a different matter.