3 ms·
>Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. I recommend _The impossibility of “fairness”: a generalized impossibility result for decisions_[0] and _Inherent Tr
by bobcostas55 8y ago
>Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias.
I recommend _The impossibility of “fairness”: a generalized impossibility result for decisions_[0] and _Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores_[1]
[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01195.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01195.pdf
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf
- tlb 8y agoIt's true that you can't ever be perfectly fair, for every reasonable definition of fair. However, you can easily mess up and be very unfair. So even though there is no "perfect", there is still a continuum of bad to good.
- eanzenberg 8y agoYour definition of "fair" is some other groups definition of "unfair". And I'm not even talking about pro- anti- nazis, I'm talking about more mundane leanings.
- ramblerman 8y agoNot sure why you are being downvoted. This is a reasonable sentiment. It's similar to people who want to lose their accent when learning a language. It's something that is impossible to do, you can't not speak with an accent. The way to lose your accent is to pick a new one, and begin emulating it.
- kanox 8y ago> Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. This very high up and is written in a way which would explicitly allow "fair bias". This means activists will have a free hand to use their positions at Google to enforce their vision of political orthodoxy.
- skybrian 8y agoA search engine with no biases whatsoever is useless. The whole point is to be biased towards articles that users find more useful, not to give a random sample of the Internet (whatever that means). I'm sure there will be internal debate over what biases are good ones to keep and nobody gets a free hand. But as a policy, it doesn't restrict Google's options very much.
- dredmorbius 8y agoBias and discrimination are foundational to information and decision systems. Thate's wwhat they do: decide, choose, and filter. Pichai's point is that such discrimination must be fair and societally beneficiaĺ. The line is not clean, straight, or constant. But it provides a guiding principle to future decisionmakers aand stakeholders.
- randcraw 8y ago'Fairness' isn't a single optimal decision. It's a continuing debate, refreshed by new data and a refined awareness of consequences, especially those unanticipated and unseen. Google isn't promising that they're done with the question of how to use data justly. They are promising that as the public debate continues over where the line is drawn and redrawn between fair use and abuse of data, they will be a willing participant in that debate, and that they're receptive to abiding by decisions that require compromise on their part. What more do you want?