4 ms·
In this case, you seem to be implying garbage in/ garbage out. My point is that when you get a good input dataset and there is still some sort of bias in the o
by fein 9y ago
In this case, you seem to be implying garbage in/ garbage out.
My point is that when you get a good input dataset and there is still some sort of bias in the output, you have to start asking questions on why the results are biased towards one group by examining the variables pertaining to that group.
The position you're starting with seems to be that the output should never be biased, which means you're not really approaching this scientifically and won't stop messing with input sets until you get the output you agree with; not the output which is necessarily true but you disagree with for personal reasons.
You can't just claim "bad data" every time you get a result that doesn't jive with your politics.
- CPLX 9y agoWhat I am saying is much simpler. You said that the machine can't discriminate because the machine doesn't know what race is. I'm just pointing out that the machine doesn't know what anything at all is. All it can do is work with what humans are telling it. If the real world is biased it can then itself be biased. There are many feedback loops in societies. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and those subjected to discrimination often have objectively worse outcomes. An algorithm can very easily be susceptible to just recursively documenting actual bias that exists in the real world and giving it the veneer of objectivity. It's an actual hard problem that is the topic of this thread, hand waving isn't going to fix it.
- fein 9y agoI think the problem is that you're looking at "bias" as a dirty word. > If the real world is biased it can then itself be biased. And if said algorithm corroborates that bias, then is reality somehow "bad" as a result, or do you just not like the outcome because it "feels bad"? There is a difference between truth and an idealized outcome that you desperately want to be true.
- saas_co_de 9y agoNone of that is relevant to what the law is.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- CPLX 9y agoImagine a world ruled by blue people, who control all the roads. Every time a green person tries to drive a blue person will throw rocks at their car, pour oil in front of the wheels, etc. Also for historical reasons all the green people live in certain neighborhoods. Now imagine creating bureau that would review driving and accident data and attempt to answer the question "How good at driving is this person?" The idea being that we are going to try to keep the worst drivers off the road. People scream hey wait a second that's not fair at all. So you take steps to address this whole system instead and solve the real problem. You try to crack down on all the rock throwing, and not prejudge someone without knowing the circumstances. Until one day an algorithm comes along to answer the question. But wait, we thought of that, we make it so the algorithm can't take into account what color the driver is. It can only rely on other things. See the problem yet?
- mcphage 9y ago> And if said algorithm corroborates that bias, then is reality somehow "bad" as a result, or do you just not like the outcome because it "feels bad"? The algorithm won't corroborate the bias—it will include the bias, because the bias will be built into its data. It's not an independent variable.