3 ms·

That’s not a great argument though - essentially “we can’t prevent an ML model from being biased so we should embrace it.” Western society has mostly accepted

That’s not a great argument though - essentially “we can’t prevent an ML model from being biased so we should embrace it.” Western society has mostly accepted the idea that—outside of some specific cases—we should avoid building systems and processes that systematically discriminate against people on the basis of a selection of characteristics which have historically attracted it. The exact application of this concept, the interpretation of it, and the boundaries of discrimination or protected characteristics will continue to be subject to gray areas and refinement. The rules are not perfect. But I do think a better solution to the problem (“we have implemented a whizz-bang new technology which is inherently subject to bias”) is to either fix or discard that technology, rather than discarding the concepts of equalities regulation and civil rights.

esotericn 7y ago
I think you've mistaken me. My argument is that if we take the standpoint that we don't just want the metric to be whatever is short-term economically optimal for the designer of the model, we should just stop/ban it now, because we already know that we're going to have to kill it once we actually understand it properly. It's only allowed now because we haven't figured out the bad things that are happening. Inventing more and more categories that businesses are not permitted to discriminate upon is precisely the wrong approach - if we're talking about huge companies and not the bakery down the road, we need something that's more like 'you need a very good reason to exclude someone', rather than 'you can exclude someone for whatever reason they like, unless they're a member of the set of continually extending list of protected categories'.