4 ms·
>“Any algorithm, that intentionally or not results in discriminatory treatment of women or any other protected class of people violates New York [and federal] l
by slg 7y ago
>“Any algorithm, that intentionally or not results in discriminatory treatment of women or any other protected class of people violates New York [and federal] law.”
I worry about this a lot with the growing importance of algorithms and machine learning. You can't just not actively program the thing to discriminate and assume that is enough. You have to specifically program it to not discriminate.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- taway87 7y agoSo, "credit realism", to match "IQ realism"? I see this a lot, and the background assumption seems to be "in the real world, minority group A is actually riskier, dumber, or objectively worse in some other way, so in order to comply with anti-discrimination, we have to introduce special cases." Maybe instead we should start with the assumption that women are NOT riskier, dumber, or objectively worse, and fix the likely bug, instead?
- MaupitiBlue 7y agoBecause the goal was to be realistic, not to assuage white guilt.
- justapassenger 7y agoImplementation details of law and enforcement matter a lot, but in general, I agree with a spirit of it. As world depends more and more on algorithms, we need to have more security around them. Especially as algorithms are used a lot as cost cutting, so reaching competent human to appeal error is becoming harder and harder. If we don’t put more scrutiny around tech, we may end up living in kafkaesque world.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- daenz 7y agoAll uneven distributions must be weighted accordingly to emulate a uniform distribution across classes. That's apparently what some people want.