Yeah, this bit for example: > The algorithm was also constantly changing. The data inputs were flowing into the algorithm in real time, but the actual weights,

Yeah, this bit for example: > The algorithm was also constantly changing. The data inputs were flowing into the algorithm in real time, but the actual weights, measures and trade-offs that the algorithm made weren’t static either. Some of the functions that the researcher had woven in used machine learning – techniques where the machine constantly learned and adapted to what the most important patterns, correlations and relationships were. It meant that the algorithm was constantly changing and moving as the world moved around it, and its diet of data changed to reflect that. shows the reporter having only a superficial acquaintance, but wanting to sound authoritative, and engenders considerable distrust on my part. For a much much more credible and vastly more entertaining take on the issue of opaque processes empowered with scary real world decision making abilities, see James Mickens' recent talk[1] on why we should be deeply worried by this, enough to update our traditional computer security model (discussed here[2] also.) 1: https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity18/presentation/mickens https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity18/presentat... 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17785162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17785162