8 ms·

That's been bothering me, the word "algorithm" is slowly becoming known as this ambiguously scary thing.

zghst 9y ago
Everyday people couldn't even tell you the definition of "algorithm", even then, they wouldn't recognize that algorithms are not only encoded into chips but also business process, legal compliance, etc.
- mattkrause 9y ago
  To be fair, it's very hard to precisely define "algorithm" and actual, working scientists and philosophers have been arguing about this for ages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm_characterizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm_characterizations
Chaebixi 9y ago
It's kinda understandable, though. Whenever the services of Google, Facebook, etc. behave in an inscrutable, nonsensical, or offensive way, they blame it on their "algorithm" (for a recent example, see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/06/youtube-alters-search-algorithm-over-fake-las-vegas-conspiracy-videos https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/06/youtube-alte...). That's really the only context where the term "algorithm" surfaces in mainstream discussion. ML has had a lot of successes, but one of its failures has been more unpredictability on the level of individuals and events that people actually experience.
mfoy_ 9y ago
An "algorithm" is simply a way to do a thing based on a set of rules to be followed... of course it's ambiguous. Getting scared of anything that generic is silly. Might as well fear the outside because anything can happen out there!
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  It's quite not, actually. Humans have the ability to see nuance in things. Computers currently don't. So you see things like Google banning developers for innocuous violations of the rules, whereas humans (assuming they were given enough time to properly review) wouldn't give 3 strikes just because they saw the same violation 3 times.
  - mfoy_ 9y ago
    No, that really is the definition of an algorithm. Algorithms and computers are NOT inextricably linked. Just because software often uses algorithms to define behaviour, doesn't mean algorithms cannot mean other things.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      In the context being discussed, computers are involved and are the ones making the decisions.
      - mfoy_ 9y ago
        That's not the context of this discussion. Refer to the parent comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15417291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15417291 The context is the word "algorithm".
- AlexandrB 9y ago
  Throughout most of history rules and laws were enforced by a combination of "the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law". The latter being shorthand for the role of human discretion. Algorithms completely obliterate the latter - increasingly turning previously flexible systems into the equivalent of zero-tolerance-policy schools, where human discretion has no role to play. This is a problem because many laws on the books were written with the assumption that "the spirit of the law" would be a guiding principle when "the letter of the law" is unclear. As a trivial example of this going terribly wrong, consider Youtube's copyright enforcement algorithms. Copyright was clearly designed with many loopholes for fair use to allow culture to move forward. Youtube's algorithms ignore all of this, changing the effective meaning of copyright on the site from one where the rights of the copyright owner are balanced with the rights of critics, commenters, and other creators to one where the rights of copyright owners are the only ones that matter. Now imagine this kind of algorithmic enforcement applied to traffic laws, HR rules, or insurance policies and you can see why people might be nervous about "algorithms". Algorithms neither think nor feel and have no empathy. It's the ultimate actualization of the dystopia in the movie Brazil where the world is a cold, unfeeling, bureaucratic nightmare. Except where human bureaucrats at least need to sleep sometimes, computerized ones never rest.
KirinDave 9y ago
Maybe if humans took responsibility for the algorithms they created and didn't shrug and say, "It's the algorithm" then "the algorithm" wouldn't be the antagonists in this story.
- gmfawcett 9y ago
  Even in that light, algorithms aren't the enemy: models are. If I build a predictive model that harms people, then my model is the cause of harm, not the fact that I built it using random-forest or CNN.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Models are algorithms with parameters.
coliveira 9y ago
You should get used to that. When technology does harm, then the creators of this technology will point to the algorithm, the same way that Google talks about an algorithm as being a living thing. Of course, whenever they do good things, then the merit goes to the (human) creators of the algorithm -- in fact, to the founder(s) of the company that created the algorithm.
fmihaila 9y ago
Yeah, 'algorithms' are the new 'chemicals'.

Everyday people couldn't even tell you the definition of "algorithm", even then, they wouldn't recognize that algorithms are not only encoded into chips but also business process, legal compliance, etc.

mattkrause 9y ago
To be fair, it's very hard to precisely define "algorithm" and actual, working scientists and philosophers have been arguing about this for ages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm_characterizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm_characterizations

Chaebixi 9y ago

It's kinda understandable, though. Whenever the services of Google, Facebook, etc. behave in an inscrutable, nonsensical, or offensive way, they blame it on their "algorithm" (for a recent example, see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/06/youtube-alters-search-algorithm-over-fake-las-vegas-conspiracy-videos https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/06/youtube-alte...). That's really the only context where the term "algorithm" surfaces in mainstream discussion. ML has had a lot of successes, but one of its failures has been more unpredictability on the level of individuals and events that people actually experience.

mfoy_ 9y ago

An "algorithm" is simply a way to do a thing based on a set of rules to be followed... of course it's ambiguous. Getting scared of anything that generic is silly. Might as well fear the outside because anything can happen out there!

s73ver_ 9y ago
It's quite not, actually. Humans have the ability to see nuance in things. Computers currently don't. So you see things like Google banning developers for innocuous violations of the rules, whereas humans (assuming they were given enough time to properly review) wouldn't give 3 strikes just because they saw the same violation 3 times.
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  No, that really is the definition of an algorithm. Algorithms and computers are NOT inextricably linked. Just because software often uses algorithms to define behaviour, doesn't mean algorithms cannot mean other things.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    In the context being discussed, computers are involved and are the ones making the decisions.
    - mfoy_ 9y ago
      That's not the context of this discussion. Refer to the parent comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15417291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15417291 The context is the word "algorithm".
AlexandrB 9y ago
Throughout most of history rules and laws were enforced by a combination of "the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law". The latter being shorthand for the role of human discretion. Algorithms completely obliterate the latter - increasingly turning previously flexible systems into the equivalent of zero-tolerance-policy schools, where human discretion has no role to play. This is a problem because many laws on the books were written with the assumption that "the spirit of the law" would be a guiding principle when "the letter of the law" is unclear. As a trivial example of this going terribly wrong, consider Youtube's copyright enforcement algorithms. Copyright was clearly designed with many loopholes for fair use to allow culture to move forward. Youtube's algorithms ignore all of this, changing the effective meaning of copyright on the site from one where the rights of the copyright owner are balanced with the rights of critics, commenters, and other creators to one where the rights of copyright owners are the only ones that matter. Now imagine this kind of algorithmic enforcement applied to traffic laws, HR rules, or insurance policies and you can see why people might be nervous about "algorithms". Algorithms neither think nor feel and have no empathy. It's the ultimate actualization of the dystopia in the movie Brazil where the world is a cold, unfeeling, bureaucratic nightmare. Except where human bureaucrats at least need to sleep sometimes, computerized ones never rest.

KirinDave 9y ago

Maybe if humans took responsibility for the algorithms they created and didn't shrug and say, "It's the algorithm" then "the algorithm" wouldn't be the antagonists in this story.

gmfawcett 9y ago
Even in that light, algorithms aren't the enemy: models are. If I build a predictive model that harms people, then my model is the cause of harm, not the fact that I built it using random-forest or CNN.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Models are algorithms with parameters.

coliveira 9y ago

You should get used to that. When technology does harm, then the creators of this technology will point to the algorithm, the same way that Google talks about an algorithm as being a living thing. Of course, whenever they do good things, then the merit goes to the (human) creators of the algorithm -- in fact, to the founder(s) of the company that created the algorithm.

fmihaila 9y ago

Yeah, 'algorithms' are the new 'chemicals'.