3 ms·

The public doesn't care about those distinctions. So it's useful to cancel out a negative gut-reaction to encourage a more nuanced view.

rayiner 8y ago
This isn’t algorithmic justice, just regular automation. So it’s dishonest to suggest it should cancel out the problems that have been created by algorithmic justice.
- chrismeller 8y ago
  Agreed. > select * from judgements where description like ‘%marijuana%’ Is one of the least impressive IT feats ever.
  - amenod 8y ago
    I strongly disagree. A trivial SQL statement that saves thousands of people lots of hassle is a very impressive IT feat in my eyes.
    - jrochkind1 8y ago
      fair!
  - pizza 8y ago
    trees for the forest
bilbo0s 8y ago
I don't know man? Just Devil's Advocate here, but it I think if Trump did that, and then tried to say he was just trying to encourage a "nuanced" view, we'd all yell, "See! Politicians are always lying!"
hnaccy 8y ago
That seems manipulative.
jrochkind1 8y ago
You think the public is going to be opposed to _this_ sort of thing, because of what they've heard about the _actual_ statistical algorithmic things? I seriously doubt it. I think the author was trying to do exactly the reverse, get people to _support_ the statistical algorithmic things because of this thing, which seems obviously a good idea. It seems like (exagerrated of course) saying "Yeah, I know you don't like autonomous military robots killing people, but you like YOUR TOASTER, right? It also works on electric power, and turns itself off unattended when your toast is done. Maybe there's a role for Autonomous Killing Robots after all, they might even be able to toast your bread with their lasers!" Most of the public has never even heard the term "algorithmic justice", of course. You're saying "the public doesn't care about those distinctions," but it's the OP author _suggesting_ we include software providing _decision-making_ based on statistical algorithms, along with simple rule-based automation, both under "algorithmic justice", _rather_ than making a distinction. The OP author encouraging us not to make distinctions. I think the public is smart enough to distinguish between software that is _making decisions_ and software that isn't, and it's the OP that is asking this distinction not be made. As the public is indeed just starting to learn how to think about and categorize these things, I think it's irresponsible to try to educate them _not_ to make distinctions, and I think it's being done for an agenda.
- dak1 8y ago
  Yes, they really will. If you oppose this initiative, you start running ads: "Your legislator wants to let a computer overrule judges and juries and put criminals back on the streets. Call your legislator now to tell them you oppose HB-555." There's enough truth there, that explaining it away takes far too much effort, and in politics, if you're explaining, you're losing. If you don't think this is how this kind of thing works, you haven't been paying attention.
yarrel 8y ago
It might be, but using the benefits of a very different thing to launder the reputation of something that people have very legitimate concerns about isn't nuance - it's dishonesty.

rayiner 8y ago

This isn’t algorithmic justice, just regular automation. So it’s dishonest to suggest it should cancel out the problems that have been created by algorithmic justice.

chrismeller 8y ago
Agreed. > select * from judgements where description like ‘%marijuana%’ Is one of the least impressive IT feats ever.
- amenod 8y ago
  I strongly disagree. A trivial SQL statement that saves thousands of people lots of hassle is a very impressive IT feat in my eyes.
  - jrochkind1 8y ago
    fair!
- pizza 8y ago
  trees for the forest

bilbo0s 8y ago

I don't know man? Just Devil's Advocate here, but it I think if Trump did that, and then tried to say he was just trying to encourage a "nuanced" view, we'd all yell, "See! Politicians are always lying!"

hnaccy 8y ago

That seems manipulative.

jrochkind1 8y ago

You think the public is going to be opposed to _this_ sort of thing, because of what they've heard about the _actual_ statistical algorithmic things? I seriously doubt it. I think the author was trying to do exactly the reverse, get people to _support_ the statistical algorithmic things because of this thing, which seems obviously a good idea. It seems like (exagerrated of course) saying "Yeah, I know you don't like autonomous military robots killing people, but you like YOUR TOASTER, right? It also works on electric power, and turns itself off unattended when your toast is done. Maybe there's a role for Autonomous Killing Robots after all, they might even be able to toast your bread with their lasers!" Most of the public has never even heard the term "algorithmic justice", of course. You're saying "the public doesn't care about those distinctions," but it's the OP author _suggesting_ we include software providing _decision-making_ based on statistical algorithms, along with simple rule-based automation, both under "algorithmic justice", _rather_ than making a distinction. The OP author encouraging us not to make distinctions. I think the public is smart enough to distinguish between software that is _making decisions_ and software that isn't, and it's the OP that is asking this distinction not be made. As the public is indeed just starting to learn how to think about and categorize these things, I think it's irresponsible to try to educate them _not_ to make distinctions, and I think it's being done for an agenda.

dak1 8y ago
Yes, they really will. If you oppose this initiative, you start running ads: "Your legislator wants to let a computer overrule judges and juries and put criminals back on the streets. Call your legislator now to tell them you oppose HB-555." There's enough truth there, that explaining it away takes far too much effort, and in politics, if you're explaining, you're losing. If you don't think this is how this kind of thing works, you haven't been paying attention.

yarrel 8y ago

It might be, but using the benefits of a very different thing to launder the reputation of something that people have very legitimate concerns about isn't nuance - it's dishonesty.