7 ms·

But it is possible to make one that is representatively fair first and foremost, with procedurally fair and utilitarianism at 2nd and 3rd priorities.

kauffj 8y ago
Yes, it is. But if you're designing an algorithm that assesses credit risk and you do this, you will lose money compared to a company that does not do this.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  You might even cause a financial crisis along the lines of the 2008 disaster.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    As long as you're too big to fail and get bailed out, it's someone else's problem. EDIT: I didn't say this was just or right, just the current state.
- sangnoir 8y ago
  The cost-to-benefit analysis of wheelchair ramps doesn't look great either (compared to not building one). Focusing on profit alone leads to some pretty terrible outcomes for people.
  - swsieber 8y ago
    Taking credit when you can't pay it back doesn't just hurt the bank - it hurts you too. Getting loaned money is not a right, and if you are irresponsible, it's harmful. So if lending more to a certain segment of the population hurts the bank's profit, I'd also expect it to cause more problems for that population segment too.
- sam0x17 8y ago
  Which is why we need regulation forcing you to do it
- sam0x17 8y ago
  Frankly, private industry has been lucky up until this point that anything other than your financial history has been allowed to factor into your credit score or credit worthiness __at all__. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets limited to solely financial factors by regulation within the next 10-20 years. In terms of regulations, I think by regulation they shouldn't be allowed to give the algorithms anything but loan amounts, payment schedules, and payment history. Don't give them locations. Don't give them age, name, race, or gender. Don't even give them the names of banks, since this too can be used in a discriminatory way that can be used to imply geographic location and thus race etc. Yes, people with no credit history will get terrible scores, but that's the point of a credit system. It should be based solely off of your merits and what you've actually done, not off of what people in your area/situation tend to do based on statistics. Then it's just statistics creating statistics, and socioeconomic mobility freezes
  - Domenic_S 8y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean; are you saying an otherwise-creditworthy person could get denied a loan based on other factors?
    - sam0x17 8y ago
      Right now yes companies are starting to use things like your facebook profile as a basis of denial.
      - Domenic_S 8y ago
        That’s madness, do you have a link?
whiddershins 8y ago
But you have to be sure the groups you are equalizing across are fair and valid and comprehensive groups.
- shadowbained 8y ago
  I've been advocating for the rights of my own group "left handed 1/64 cherokee Americans with hazel eyes and slighly wavy brown hair" forever and I've been STUNNED at how quick people are to ignore the systemic bias against us. Some other categories of people seem to be doing much better than us, which is only explainable from systemic bias. Unless we are down with being complicit in a "right handed non partially cherokee non slightly wavy brown hair and hazel eyes" supremacist system, our society needs to start addressing this right away.
  - dang 8y ago
    We've banned this account for trolling. That's what flamebait on inflammatory topics is, intentionally or not.
    - gdy 8y ago
      He has a point, though.
      - dang 8y ago
        It seems like a shallow and obvious one to me, but if I'm mistaken and there's more there there, it deserves to be expressed substantively and respectfully. Otherwise the only effect is to rile up agreers with positive charge and disagreers with negative charge—just what we don't need.
        dvtrn 8y ago
        It seems like a shallow and obvious one to me That's really unfortunate. I could go on quite a bit about how, as a man of color, it gets fatiguing having certain conversations or trying to express certain points of view in these types of socio-political debates lately (to my dismay sometimes right here on HN-a forum that holds itself to a certain standard of debate but seems quite eager to throw it out, convenience permitting), but looking around at a lot of other comments in this very thread that seem to run contrary to whatever personally defined "truths" are out there, it'd probably just get downvoted and flagged as well. I'll just leave it like this, if it seems "shallow", to you-dang-then probably it's time for some deep personal introspection because like gdy, I think shadowbained's point isn't wrong and I don't fault him for the fatigue that's probably in his soul which results in a delivery style that doesn't fit a mold of pretend decorum. A mold manifested and curated by political-egotists, IMO. (This last point made as broadly as possible)
stcredzero 8y ago
representatively fair first and foremost, with procedurally fair and utilitarianism at 2nd and 3rd priorities This sounds like a description of Harvard's admission policies with regards to Asians.
- ptd 8y ago
  Are Asians underrepresented at Harvard? Or if you’re referring to something else, can you elobarate?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Are Asians underrepresented at Harvard? Or if you’re referring to something else, can you elobarate? (sic) If you re-read my comment, it's clear that I'm not talking about rates of representation. You are trying to bring that in. We're talking about the process, be it a policy implementation or an algorithm. It's the age-old "equality of outcome" vs. "equality of opportunity." https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Berge...
    - ptd 8y ago
      I wasn’t trying to bring anything in, simply curious exactly what you meant. You’re right though, if I had read you comment more closely I would have realized my question was irrelevant. Thanks for the link.
  - waterhouse 8y ago
    As I understand it, Asians are "underrepresented" at Harvard relative to what they would be if Harvard judged candidates based on SAT scores, scholastic achievement, and other seemingly-objective-and-reasonably-sensible metrics. They're "underrepresented" relative to the pool of candidates who are qualified to be at Harvard. But they are "overrepresented" compared to the general population of the United States. Which comparison is the right one?
    - 8y ago
kbenson 8y ago
Why is representatively fair the gold standard? What if in 10 or 20 years we view one of the other methods of optimizing as a more "fair" way (i.e. what if our current consensus on what is best is not absolute truth, but a social and cultural bubble)? Then all our algorithms will be sub-optimal (at that time). Just as different cultures value these differently, it makes sense that one culture that changes over time might as well.

kauffj 8y ago

Yes, it is. But if you're designing an algorithm that assesses credit risk and you do this, you will lose money compared to a company that does not do this.

chrisco255 8y ago
You might even cause a financial crisis along the lines of the 2008 disaster.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  As long as you're too big to fail and get bailed out, it's someone else's problem. EDIT: I didn't say this was just or right, just the current state.
sangnoir 8y ago
The cost-to-benefit analysis of wheelchair ramps doesn't look great either (compared to not building one). Focusing on profit alone leads to some pretty terrible outcomes for people.
- swsieber 8y ago
  Taking credit when you can't pay it back doesn't just hurt the bank - it hurts you too. Getting loaned money is not a right, and if you are irresponsible, it's harmful. So if lending more to a certain segment of the population hurts the bank's profit, I'd also expect it to cause more problems for that population segment too.
sam0x17 8y ago
Which is why we need regulation forcing you to do it
sam0x17 8y ago
Frankly, private industry has been lucky up until this point that anything other than your financial history has been allowed to factor into your credit score or credit worthiness __at all__. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets limited to solely financial factors by regulation within the next 10-20 years. In terms of regulations, I think by regulation they shouldn't be allowed to give the algorithms anything but loan amounts, payment schedules, and payment history. Don't give them locations. Don't give them age, name, race, or gender. Don't even give them the names of banks, since this too can be used in a discriminatory way that can be used to imply geographic location and thus race etc. Yes, people with no credit history will get terrible scores, but that's the point of a credit system. It should be based solely off of your merits and what you've actually done, not off of what people in your area/situation tend to do based on statistics. Then it's just statistics creating statistics, and socioeconomic mobility freezes
- Domenic_S 8y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean; are you saying an otherwise-creditworthy person could get denied a loan based on other factors?
  - sam0x17 8y ago
    Right now yes companies are starting to use things like your facebook profile as a basis of denial.
    - Domenic_S 8y ago
      That’s madness, do you have a link?

whiddershins 8y ago

But you have to be sure the groups you are equalizing across are fair and valid and comprehensive groups.

shadowbained 8y ago
I've been advocating for the rights of my own group "left handed 1/64 cherokee Americans with hazel eyes and slighly wavy brown hair" forever and I've been STUNNED at how quick people are to ignore the systemic bias against us. Some other categories of people seem to be doing much better than us, which is only explainable from systemic bias. Unless we are down with being complicit in a "right handed non partially cherokee non slightly wavy brown hair and hazel eyes" supremacist system, our society needs to start addressing this right away.
- dang 8y ago
  We've banned this account for trolling. That's what flamebait on inflammatory topics is, intentionally or not.
  - gdy 8y ago
    He has a point, though.
    - dang 8y ago
      It seems like a shallow and obvious one to me, but if I'm mistaken and there's more there there, it deserves to be expressed substantively and respectfully. Otherwise the only effect is to rile up agreers with positive charge and disagreers with negative charge—just what we don't need.
      - dvtrn 8y ago
        It seems like a shallow and obvious one to me That's really unfortunate. I could go on quite a bit about how, as a man of color, it gets fatiguing having certain conversations or trying to express certain points of view in these types of socio-political debates lately (to my dismay sometimes right here on HN-a forum that holds itself to a certain standard of debate but seems quite eager to throw it out, convenience permitting), but looking around at a lot of other comments in this very thread that seem to run contrary to whatever personally defined "truths" are out there, it'd probably just get downvoted and flagged as well. I'll just leave it like this, if it seems "shallow", to you-dang-then probably it's time for some deep personal introspection because like gdy, I think shadowbained's point isn't wrong and I don't fault him for the fatigue that's probably in his soul which results in a delivery style that doesn't fit a mold of pretend decorum. A mold manifested and curated by political-egotists, IMO. (This last point made as broadly as possible)

stcredzero 8y ago

representatively fair first and foremost, with procedurally fair and utilitarianism at 2nd and 3rd priorities This sounds like a description of Harvard's admission policies with regards to Asians.

ptd 8y ago
Are Asians underrepresented at Harvard? Or if you’re referring to something else, can you elobarate?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Are Asians underrepresented at Harvard? Or if you’re referring to something else, can you elobarate? (sic) If you re-read my comment, it's clear that I'm not talking about rates of representation. You are trying to bring that in. We're talking about the process, be it a policy implementation or an algorithm. It's the age-old "equality of outcome" vs. "equality of opportunity." https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Berge...
  - ptd 8y ago
    I wasn’t trying to bring anything in, simply curious exactly what you meant. You’re right though, if I had read you comment more closely I would have realized my question was irrelevant. Thanks for the link.
- waterhouse 8y ago
  As I understand it, Asians are "underrepresented" at Harvard relative to what they would be if Harvard judged candidates based on SAT scores, scholastic achievement, and other seemingly-objective-and-reasonably-sensible metrics. They're "underrepresented" relative to the pool of candidates who are qualified to be at Harvard. But they are "overrepresented" compared to the general population of the United States. Which comparison is the right one?
  - 8y ago

kbenson 8y ago

Why is representatively fair the gold standard? What if in 10 or 20 years we view one of the other methods of optimizing as a more "fair" way (i.e. what if our current consensus on what is best is not absolute truth, but a social and cultural bubble)? Then all our algorithms will be sub-optimal (at that time). Just as different cultures value these differently, it makes sense that one culture that changes over time might as well.