The majority of that article seems to report on the same stories as the Nautilus article. The meat of the disagreement is in the conclusion section. > However,

The majority of that article seems to report on the same stories as the Nautilus article. The meat of the disagreement is in the conclusion section. > However, there is a significant cost to forcing algorithm outputs to reflect wishful thinking. If we are issuing loans, we will issue more loans to people who do not pay them back. If we are making parole/sentencing decisions for convicted criminals, we will release more dangerous criminals who go on to commit new crimes. > This may not be a concern for the journalist, but it should be a concern for the rest of us. I agree that this is the heart of the issue but by leaving this to the conclusion, I think the author didn't end up arguing for why we should optimize for objective cost instead of for our ideal reality. It might be financially profitable for a bank to use a racist lending policy but as a society we think that it is wrong so we passed regulations forbidding the banks to do so. Similarly, the criminal justice system is supposed to serve society and follow our ideal sense of justice and shouldnt be blindly optimizing recidivism rate. As the Nautilus article said, "What gets chosen is usually whatever is easiest to quantify, rather than the fairest".