3 ms·
This is such a fascinating and interesting question. I highly recommend reading the book 'Automating Inequality'[0] if you haven't already. My initial reaction
by zaksoup 8y ago
This is such a fascinating and interesting question. I highly recommend reading the book 'Automating Inequality'[0] if you haven't already. My initial reaction to this question was 'I certainly would prefer groups of humans making collective decisions over an opaque, proprietary, algorithm'. But then I also think back to the latest internet firestorm of the woman calling the police on black barbecuers over charcoal (this happened a block from my house). Can we actually trust people en masse to make collaborative decisions that generally avoid bias? Definitely not.
I think your comment may have changed my mind about the utility, objectivity, and overall value of amber alerts...
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Automating-Inequality-High-Tech-Profile-Police-ebook/dp/B0739MF8VF/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527011524&sr=8-1&keywords=automating+inequality https://www.amazon.com/Automating-Inequality-High-Tech-Profi...
- eanzenberg 8y agoThis is a case of "system worked as intended." Humans are fairly audit-able, can be seen, and public discourse can have its moment. Imagine if instead one of the thousands of street-cams was used to phone in the call to police. There would be no public discourse because of the invisibility of the actions.
- steveeq1 8y agoWait, I don't get it. Someone was using charcoal as opposed to, say, wood? So what? Is that a fire hazard or something?