4 ms·

Charitably, I think the writing here underscores how much scarier the spread of automation is for people who have never been involved in writing an algorithm (o

Charitably, I think the writing here underscores how much scarier the spread of automation is for people who have never been involved in writing an algorithm (or better yet a complex system). Even if you're well educated in another field, there's a really giant gap between being told 100 times in popular press how information systems work (or don't), versus being part of trying to make one work. Personally I don't see much difference between how opaque the world of automation is and how opaque law, or government bureaucracy, or media production, or any other human industry is from the point of view of a non-expert. But perhaps for many people, it is easier to trust long chains of human processing than long chains of machinery.

yters 8y ago
At least with people there is someone you could possibly ask and get an answer. No such luck with a black box algorithm.
- candiodari 8y ago
  On the other hand, one can verify that an algorithm is fair. One can verify it in the algorithm itself and one can verify that the inputs are fair. In fact, this is often necessary to do just to make it work well. With humans one can't, and as a result there is blatant unfairness everywhere. Nepotism, racism, corruption, ... these algorithms can, if allowed, make it very hard for those to exist. Humans cannot be trusted to make decisions about other humans, not even with the best of intentions (because they still destroy people against the rules to protect the rules). Needless to say a great many politicians are trying to stop the algorithms. Because they can't explain what they've done is the best they can come up with (which is stupid, the better argument, imho, is that one cannot with certainty predict what the algorithms will do in any given case. So if a neural network was the law, there would be no way to know what the edge of legality is. They might send Maria Theresa to jail, so to speak, for tying her shoelaces crossed or some other stupidly small unique thing) Besides, do a bit of law, the reason humans can explain and algorithms can't be explained is as trivial as it is horrible: humans simply don't take more than 2 or 3 variables into account even for critical decisions. This is stupid, for obvious reasons, but it's also why you can explain. I assure you, for a 3 neuron neural network, just taking 3 factors into account, there is no explainability problem. this is a fact often complained about in outcomes. Certain variables make seemingly malevolent decisions innocent. But those variables can't or aren't taken into account, so ... boom hammer comes down, life destroyed.
- evrydayhustling 8y ago
  Strongly disagree with this line of argument. Almost all human systems are intentionally opaque about some choices or have unplanned consequences you can't get a clear answer about. And, algorithms can be studied in the same ways that we use to critically evaluate human systems -- and sometimes better. Why does your local paper run stories featuring some businesses but not others? Why do college admissions tend to overrepresent some populations and underrepresent others? Why are women paid less on average for the same titles? Why do prosecutors disproportionately bring charges against minority suspects with equivalent weight of evidence? You can't get answers about those human decision processes just by asking - it requires research, competing theories, and sometimes legal action forcing people to share info. Explainability of decisions isn't about how much tech is used... It's about how open a system's operators are to sharing info, and how much effort everyone is willing to put into interpreting it.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    "Almost all human systems are intentionally opaque" I question the word "intentionally". I would suggest that human systems evolve to be opaque, because that helps them be resilient and survive. If a human system is truly understandable by anyone, then it can be destroyed by some of its members/adversaries and sooner or later someone will.
    - evrydayhustling 8y ago
      Fair point about evolution - what I meant about intention is that some people involved in a decision could tell you more than they are willing to. I think it's worth distinguishing that from systems feeling opaque because of consequences nobody operating them was aware of.

yters 8y ago

At least with people there is someone you could possibly ask and get an answer. No such luck with a black box algorithm.

candiodari 8y ago
On the other hand, one can verify that an algorithm is fair. One can verify it in the algorithm itself and one can verify that the inputs are fair. In fact, this is often necessary to do just to make it work well. With humans one can't, and as a result there is blatant unfairness everywhere. Nepotism, racism, corruption, ... these algorithms can, if allowed, make it very hard for those to exist. Humans cannot be trusted to make decisions about other humans, not even with the best of intentions (because they still destroy people against the rules to protect the rules). Needless to say a great many politicians are trying to stop the algorithms. Because they can't explain what they've done is the best they can come up with (which is stupid, the better argument, imho, is that one cannot with certainty predict what the algorithms will do in any given case. So if a neural network was the law, there would be no way to know what the edge of legality is. They might send Maria Theresa to jail, so to speak, for tying her shoelaces crossed or some other stupidly small unique thing) Besides, do a bit of law, the reason humans can explain and algorithms can't be explained is as trivial as it is horrible: humans simply don't take more than 2 or 3 variables into account even for critical decisions. This is stupid, for obvious reasons, but it's also why you can explain. I assure you, for a 3 neuron neural network, just taking 3 factors into account, there is no explainability problem. this is a fact often complained about in outcomes. Certain variables make seemingly malevolent decisions innocent. But those variables can't or aren't taken into account, so ... boom hammer comes down, life destroyed.
evrydayhustling 8y ago
Strongly disagree with this line of argument. Almost all human systems are intentionally opaque about some choices or have unplanned consequences you can't get a clear answer about. And, algorithms can be studied in the same ways that we use to critically evaluate human systems -- and sometimes better. Why does your local paper run stories featuring some businesses but not others? Why do college admissions tend to overrepresent some populations and underrepresent others? Why are women paid less on average for the same titles? Why do prosecutors disproportionately bring charges against minority suspects with equivalent weight of evidence? You can't get answers about those human decision processes just by asking - it requires research, competing theories, and sometimes legal action forcing people to share info. Explainability of decisions isn't about how much tech is used... It's about how open a system's operators are to sharing info, and how much effort everyone is willing to put into interpreting it.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  "Almost all human systems are intentionally opaque" I question the word "intentionally". I would suggest that human systems evolve to be opaque, because that helps them be resilient and survive. If a human system is truly understandable by anyone, then it can be destroyed by some of its members/adversaries and sooner or later someone will.
  - evrydayhustling 8y ago
    Fair point about evolution - what I meant about intention is that some people involved in a decision could tell you more than they are willing to. I think it's worth distinguishing that from systems feeling opaque because of consequences nobody operating them was aware of.