4 ms·

Good! Bring this future! Humans should never ever ever be in charge of such things. On most domains where relevant statistical data is available, like your exam

Good! Bring this future! Humans should never ever ever be in charge of such things. On most domains where relevant statistical data is available, like your examples, even crude algorithms like linear regression will almost always beat human experts. Humans are biased as hell. Studies show judges give much harsher sentences just before lunch, when they are hungry. Attractive defendants get half the sentences as unattractive ones. Not to mention all the classic race and gender ones, and random factors we can't even measure. It is inexcusable to have humans in charge of any kind of decision process that a superior unbiased algorithm can do.

gambiting 9y ago
I think you completely misunderstood the parents concern, or chose to ignore it. The question is - what happens if an algorithm develops a bias? A bias against a specific race/sex/occupation, whatever - what happens to the principle of free an equal society then? Super simple example - you don't need AI to determine that men claim more frequently and more on car insurance than women. So....over the years, the rates for men have risen, until finally it was completely outlawed to take into account the sex of the applicant for car insurance quotes(at least here in the EU). We need the human touch to iron out problems like this. An all knowing-omnipotent algorithm if going to discriminate based on statistics and that's something I don't think society wants.
- rwallace 9y ago
  > Super simple example - you don't need AI to determine that men claim more frequently and more on car insurance than women. So....over the years, the rates for men have risen, until finally it was completely outlawed to take into account the sex of the applicant for car insurance quotes(at least here in the EU). I believe that law should be repealed, because it would lead to fewer people dying on the roads. So there is a case where not everyone agrees the human touch is actually a good thing.
  - danielbarla 9y ago
    I think it really depends on what parameter(s) the AI is optimising for, or weighting the most. If it's efficiency or profit, there are tons of things that make sense financially, but would probably be considered unethical. E.g. we could encourage people to smoke, as it tends to lower the cost of healthcare overall (since they die younger / quicker, on average). That's just an example, the point is that I'm sure there are tons of "truths" from some perspective that an AI might employ, but we'd find unethical.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    >>I believe that law should be repealed, because it would lead to fewer people dying on the roads Citation needed. Counter argument - vast majority of males in prison for murder in US are black. Therefore, if we stop anti-discrimination policies in US, that will lead to saving more lives. I mean, statistics don't lie! Or, maybe, just maybe - the statistics omit a lot of data that would allow us to narrow down what makes men claim more and why there's so many black prisoners in the US? And that brings us back to the original problem - AI can just come to a conclusion = charge men more for insurance = less accidents! Or....put more black people in prisons = less murders! And the results might be exactly what it expects, so of course it will be declared as a huge success - but it's everything but.
    - rwallace 9y ago
      Do you think it should be legal for insurance companies to charge higher premiums to smokers? If so, then you agree it's okay to simply go by the statistics in some contexts, so the existence of some other contexts in which it's not, isn't a counterargument.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  You can of course remove race and gender data from the algorithm as legally required. There are even more advanced methods to prevent it learning that information indirectly and average out its predictions. But I don't really see the point. Men really are riskier drivers. They should pay more on insurance. In the US they do, and no one seems to care. Men, as a group, pay exactly the rate that matches their risk. Anything else would mean women subsidizing men and paying more then their actual risk. I like this example because it's the reverse of the typical stereotype that women are terrible drivers. The algorithm doesn't care about stereotypes. And it's a small effect, something like 5%. Men aren't being banned from driving or ostracized from society, they just pay a bit more to make up for their higher risk. Other factors like age or previous accidenrs matter far more. And as the insurance companies get better data, that proxy will matter less and less. In the future they will just offer to record your driving behaviour on a test track and statistically analyze how skilled you actually are, or something like that. And anyway this has gotten far away from the point. If getting insurance required a human to interview you and judge your character, it would be 100 times worse. You think humans can be made blind to gender and race? When the choice is between a human and an algorithm, it's indefensible to choose the human.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    Would you be as ok with it if the algorithm was charging black people more? Would you also reply "well, the data shows that black people claim more, so it's only fair - otherwise, white people are subsidizing black people driving"? At the end of the day, you have as much control over being a man as you do over being black, and are being penalized for the actions of others, that makes no sense. >>When the choice is between a human and an algorithm, it's indefensible to choose the human. That's where I vehemently disagree.
    - Houshalter 9y ago
      I don't see any reason to believe blacks are worse drivers than whites. Especially after taking other variables into account, like economic status. If there even is an effect, just like your gender example, I doubt it would be large our align with our stereotypes. E.g. it could be the case that whites are 1% worse drivers. And yeah make them pay more, again as a group they aren't being treated unfairly and anything else would amount to subsidies to them from other groups. That's not fair either. >being penalized for the actions of others, This different way of viewing this situation is perhaps why we disagree. I don't see it as a "penalty". If you live in a wood house, you will pay more on fire insurance. You aren't being penalized, your house is just objectively riskier. People in stone houses shouldn't be forced to subsidise your extra risk. If you banned discrimination and removed all female drivers from the planet, insurance rates would go up to match what they are for men now. Men now pay what they would if there were only men. >That's where I vehemently disagree. Yeah well that's not an argument. And you can't make me bite the racism bullet if you aren't even going to acknowledge how disgusting your alternative is. After all your system has far more racism because human judges are racist. And why should someone spend twice as long in prison or be unable to get a loan because they are less attractive? Its algorithms or nothing. Humans are not even an option. And in many cases nothing isn't an option either.
danielbarla 9y ago
It's an interesting thought, and I tend to agree in a way. That said, I suspect people would really quickly learn that ruthless efficiency and "unbiasedness" is probably not what they want. We have rules and laws that ban discrimination along certain lines, but would that be applicable to an opaque AI entity?
speedplane 9y ago
Your argument is predicated on the definition of "superior" and "unbiased" and also on the data being fed into the statistical algorithm. With respect to your definition of "superior"... One of the major tenants of U.S. law is that in criminal cases you are entitled to a jury; you're judged by your peers. It's certainly possible that one day an algorithm may be more accurate than a jury in determining whether an accused person is guilty or innocent. But the jury is more than a fact checker, they provide credibility, independence, egalitarianism, and self-determination to the entire criminal justice system. Without those, the entire system could arguably collapse. So even assuming computers will eventually have humans beat on accuracy, it's hard to imagine algorithms providing the additional values that are necessary for a functioning complex system.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Juries provide the appearance of credibility, etc. In reality jury selection is a game played by lawyers with the explicit goal of removing independent insight from the process. The same applies to our political and economic systems, which exist to provide rhetorical air cover for entrenched power and resource appropriation mechanisms that disfavour most of the population. There is very little chance of independent AI spontaneously deciding to rule the world. But there is every chance of the standard entrenched political factions adding AI to the kit of tools they use for social and political manipulation. A truly independent hyper-smart AI would be the biggest possible threat to them. Not only would it be less gullible and easy to manipulate than most humans, it might conceivably be better at manipulation than they are, with unpredictable goals.
  - speedplane 9y ago
    > Juries provide the appearance of credibility, etc. In reality jury selection is a game played by lawyers with the explicit goal of removing independent insight from the process. I beg to differ, juries may be the single most important part of our justice system. In my experience witnessing juries first hand, they take their responsibility seriously. They aren't perfect, but they are very good, and more importantly, the bring credibility to the entire system by directly bringing citizens into it. The purpose of the jury selection "game", formally called voir dire, is to remove bias. Both sides ask questions, and if a juror demonstrates bias, they are excused. The idea that there is a process to remove bias from a jury pool is unquestionably a good one. Sometimes jurors are excused for other reasons, sometimes racist reasons, but this is illegal (see recent supreme court case on this). Also, the adversarial two-sided nature of the US justice system ensures that both plaintiff and defendant get to play the game equally. Also, your flippant attitude towards "appearances" is misplaced. In any justice system appearances are extremely important. If a justice system does not appear fair, even if it is fair, it will collapse. That's why judges must recuse themselves from cases even if there is a "an appearance of bias" (caveat: Supreme Court isn't subject to this rule, but that's another story). If you really want to replace jurors with AI, an AI that decides guilty or innocent wouldn't be enough. It would need to convince people that it's fair and independent. Being judged by a jury of peers in your community provides some of those assurances. It'll be a much harder sell for a robot.
notahacker 9y ago
What makes you think computers are less likely to be biased? It's far easier for an algorithm to "learn" an association between probability of guilt and the colour of pixels in the moving bit of the video screen or dialect words used in the defendant's transcript than it is for the algorithm to actually evaluate the testimony itself.

gambiting 9y ago

I think you completely misunderstood the parents concern, or chose to ignore it. The question is - what happens if an algorithm develops a bias? A bias against a specific race/sex/occupation, whatever - what happens to the principle of free an equal society then? Super simple example - you don't need AI to determine that men claim more frequently and more on car insurance than women. So....over the years, the rates for men have risen, until finally it was completely outlawed to take into account the sex of the applicant for car insurance quotes(at least here in the EU). We need the human touch to iron out problems like this. An all knowing-omnipotent algorithm if going to discriminate based on statistics and that's something I don't think society wants.

rwallace 9y ago
> Super simple example - you don't need AI to determine that men claim more frequently and more on car insurance than women. So....over the years, the rates for men have risen, until finally it was completely outlawed to take into account the sex of the applicant for car insurance quotes(at least here in the EU). I believe that law should be repealed, because it would lead to fewer people dying on the roads. So there is a case where not everyone agrees the human touch is actually a good thing.
- danielbarla 9y ago
  I think it really depends on what parameter(s) the AI is optimising for, or weighting the most. If it's efficiency or profit, there are tons of things that make sense financially, but would probably be considered unethical. E.g. we could encourage people to smoke, as it tends to lower the cost of healthcare overall (since they die younger / quicker, on average). That's just an example, the point is that I'm sure there are tons of "truths" from some perspective that an AI might employ, but we'd find unethical.
- gambiting 9y ago
  >>I believe that law should be repealed, because it would lead to fewer people dying on the roads Citation needed. Counter argument - vast majority of males in prison for murder in US are black. Therefore, if we stop anti-discrimination policies in US, that will lead to saving more lives. I mean, statistics don't lie! Or, maybe, just maybe - the statistics omit a lot of data that would allow us to narrow down what makes men claim more and why there's so many black prisoners in the US? And that brings us back to the original problem - AI can just come to a conclusion = charge men more for insurance = less accidents! Or....put more black people in prisons = less murders! And the results might be exactly what it expects, so of course it will be declared as a huge success - but it's everything but.
  - rwallace 9y ago
    Do you think it should be legal for insurance companies to charge higher premiums to smokers? If so, then you agree it's okay to simply go by the statistics in some contexts, so the existence of some other contexts in which it's not, isn't a counterargument.
Houshalter 9y ago
You can of course remove race and gender data from the algorithm as legally required. There are even more advanced methods to prevent it learning that information indirectly and average out its predictions. But I don't really see the point. Men really are riskier drivers. They should pay more on insurance. In the US they do, and no one seems to care. Men, as a group, pay exactly the rate that matches their risk. Anything else would mean women subsidizing men and paying more then their actual risk. I like this example because it's the reverse of the typical stereotype that women are terrible drivers. The algorithm doesn't care about stereotypes. And it's a small effect, something like 5%. Men aren't being banned from driving or ostracized from society, they just pay a bit more to make up for their higher risk. Other factors like age or previous accidenrs matter far more. And as the insurance companies get better data, that proxy will matter less and less. In the future they will just offer to record your driving behaviour on a test track and statistically analyze how skilled you actually are, or something like that. And anyway this has gotten far away from the point. If getting insurance required a human to interview you and judge your character, it would be 100 times worse. You think humans can be made blind to gender and race? When the choice is between a human and an algorithm, it's indefensible to choose the human.
- gambiting 9y ago
  Would you be as ok with it if the algorithm was charging black people more? Would you also reply "well, the data shows that black people claim more, so it's only fair - otherwise, white people are subsidizing black people driving"? At the end of the day, you have as much control over being a man as you do over being black, and are being penalized for the actions of others, that makes no sense. >>When the choice is between a human and an algorithm, it's indefensible to choose the human. That's where I vehemently disagree.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    I don't see any reason to believe blacks are worse drivers than whites. Especially after taking other variables into account, like economic status. If there even is an effect, just like your gender example, I doubt it would be large our align with our stereotypes. E.g. it could be the case that whites are 1% worse drivers. And yeah make them pay more, again as a group they aren't being treated unfairly and anything else would amount to subsidies to them from other groups. That's not fair either. >being penalized for the actions of others, This different way of viewing this situation is perhaps why we disagree. I don't see it as a "penalty". If you live in a wood house, you will pay more on fire insurance. You aren't being penalized, your house is just objectively riskier. People in stone houses shouldn't be forced to subsidise your extra risk. If you banned discrimination and removed all female drivers from the planet, insurance rates would go up to match what they are for men now. Men now pay what they would if there were only men. >That's where I vehemently disagree. Yeah well that's not an argument. And you can't make me bite the racism bullet if you aren't even going to acknowledge how disgusting your alternative is. After all your system has far more racism because human judges are racist. And why should someone spend twice as long in prison or be unable to get a loan because they are less attractive? Its algorithms or nothing. Humans are not even an option. And in many cases nothing isn't an option either.

danielbarla 9y ago

It's an interesting thought, and I tend to agree in a way. That said, I suspect people would really quickly learn that ruthless efficiency and "unbiasedness" is probably not what they want. We have rules and laws that ban discrimination along certain lines, but would that be applicable to an opaque AI entity?

speedplane 9y ago

Your argument is predicated on the definition of "superior" and "unbiased" and also on the data being fed into the statistical algorithm. With respect to your definition of "superior"... One of the major tenants of U.S. law is that in criminal cases you are entitled to a jury; you're judged by your peers. It's certainly possible that one day an algorithm may be more accurate than a jury in determining whether an accused person is guilty or innocent. But the jury is more than a fact checker, they provide credibility, independence, egalitarianism, and self-determination to the entire criminal justice system. Without those, the entire system could arguably collapse. So even assuming computers will eventually have humans beat on accuracy, it's hard to imagine algorithms providing the additional values that are necessary for a functioning complex system.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
Juries provide the appearance of credibility, etc. In reality jury selection is a game played by lawyers with the explicit goal of removing independent insight from the process. The same applies to our political and economic systems, which exist to provide rhetorical air cover for entrenched power and resource appropriation mechanisms that disfavour most of the population. There is very little chance of independent AI spontaneously deciding to rule the world. But there is every chance of the standard entrenched political factions adding AI to the kit of tools they use for social and political manipulation. A truly independent hyper-smart AI would be the biggest possible threat to them. Not only would it be less gullible and easy to manipulate than most humans, it might conceivably be better at manipulation than they are, with unpredictable goals.
- speedplane 9y ago
  > Juries provide the appearance of credibility, etc. In reality jury selection is a game played by lawyers with the explicit goal of removing independent insight from the process. I beg to differ, juries may be the single most important part of our justice system. In my experience witnessing juries first hand, they take their responsibility seriously. They aren't perfect, but they are very good, and more importantly, the bring credibility to the entire system by directly bringing citizens into it. The purpose of the jury selection "game", formally called voir dire, is to remove bias. Both sides ask questions, and if a juror demonstrates bias, they are excused. The idea that there is a process to remove bias from a jury pool is unquestionably a good one. Sometimes jurors are excused for other reasons, sometimes racist reasons, but this is illegal (see recent supreme court case on this). Also, the adversarial two-sided nature of the US justice system ensures that both plaintiff and defendant get to play the game equally. Also, your flippant attitude towards "appearances" is misplaced. In any justice system appearances are extremely important. If a justice system does not appear fair, even if it is fair, it will collapse. That's why judges must recuse themselves from cases even if there is a "an appearance of bias" (caveat: Supreme Court isn't subject to this rule, but that's another story). If you really want to replace jurors with AI, an AI that decides guilty or innocent wouldn't be enough. It would need to convince people that it's fair and independent. Being judged by a jury of peers in your community provides some of those assurances. It'll be a much harder sell for a robot.

notahacker 9y ago

What makes you think computers are less likely to be biased? It's far easier for an algorithm to "learn" an association between probability of guilt and the colour of pixels in the moving bit of the video screen or dialect words used in the defendant's transcript than it is for the algorithm to actually evaluate the testimony itself.