3 ms·
You've completely misunderstood my point if you think I'm advocating for the perfect at the cost of the good. I'm advocating caution rather than a blind faith t
by cgriswald 8y ago
You've completely misunderstood my point if you think I'm advocating for the perfect at the cost of the good. I'm advocating caution rather than a blind faith that this solution is ipso facto forward progress, that just needs some tweaking.
The danger here is doubling down on the existing injustices, removing the limited accountability and positive exceptions that exist, and effectively sweeping conversation under the rug or arguing ideologies about the fairness of tweaks to the algorithms at the cost of real human lives.
- rectang 8y agoYou're making a distinction without a difference -- whether it's because of "caution" or whatever, no progress will be made if you have your way. According to you the solution lies in "politics". Yet, this law is the product of California's government, a political body -- is that not legitimate "politics"? So what would make for a "political" solution that would qualify for your stamp of approval? Chasing a consensus with the "tough on crime" crowd who benefit from felony disenfranchisement disproportionately suppressing minority votes? No such consensus will ever happen.
- cgriswald 8y agoAgain, you either misunderstand or misrepresent my points. > According to you the solution lies in "politics". My post was critical of the role of politics in determining the fairness of the algorithm. It removes the human lives factor and provides a platform for politicians and ideologues ("tough on crime" or otherwise) to either do nothing, argue about the ideology of fairness, or ignore ground truth about outcomes and pre-existing bias in the system.