I can't disagree strongly enough. >Remember, at the end of the day as long as the bot's ranking is close enough to the human grader's ranking, nobody really ca

I can't disagree strongly enough. >Remember, at the end of the day as long as the bot's ranking is close enough to the human grader's ranking, nobody really cares about the internal logic. This isn't true at all. Imagine you got a B or C on an essay that a human would have given an A to because you wrote it concisely and in plain language, or because you used language that's statistically correlated with being black. Does the fact that this is rare console you? "Sorry, but it's usually very close to the human grader's ranking." Close enough isn't good enough when you get the short end of the stick. "Sorry, you aren't going to get to go to the college you wanted because you use language statistically correlated with poor writing." Or just because you're different, so the statistical correlation doesn't apply to you, you filthy outlier. Just because it's a rare event doesn't make it okay. In adulthood, this is like hiring or firing for work statistically correlated with good work. Remember when amazon rolled out the resume scorer? [0] Sure it was biased towards women, but it was close enough to human scores, so who cares about the internal logic? >Grading bots basically rely on these statistical relationships. They're not measuring anything intrinsic to good writing. At the end of the day, our goal here is to measure good writing. If the bots aren't measuring anything intrinsic to good writing, we shouldn't use them. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio...