2 ms·
How would one go about supporting your conjecture (that fairness(human+computer) > fairness(computer)) if you can't define what "fairness" means, except by circ
by quotemstr 9y ago
How would one go about supporting your conjecture (that fairness(human+computer) > fairness(computer)) if you can't define what "fairness" means, except by circularly referring to the inclusion of "human" term in the function input? Your argument doesn't make sense to me.
- dblotsky 9y agoIt's circular because the definition is circular, kind of like: "A mountain is larger than a hill, and a hill is smaller than a mountain." It's a shifting definition. Therefore I think modern statistical methods don't allow for that kind of self-reference, but humans do. I justify my conjecture by using laws as evidence. Except for the most basic of cases, they involve a human to interpret the law and the case to decide a verdict. Philosophically speaking, I think the "key component" that humans bring, besides still-superior decision-making in many cases (not all), is creativity. So far, I haven't seen any machine learning that can outperform humans in light of limited brand-new data.