3 ms·

"There is inaccuracy with other methods as well but you have humans being held accountable." How would the use of a technology make the person acting on the re

"There is inaccuracy with other methods as well but you have humans being held accountable." How would the use of a technology make the person acting on the results of the information provided not accountable? There is no agency in those systems, so accountability can not be deferred to them. "A good analogy would be a chef tolerating fecal matter in their food. Yes, there is always some small chance of that happening, but no one accepts food from s chef that explicitly treats toilet water and claims 99% of the fecal matter is gone and only one in 100 people will get sick from it. " Actually that is exactly how the food industry operates.

bskap 6y ago
We're already giving people harsher treatment because The Machine says they deserve it, with no ability for defendants to question The Machine and no one accountable for v its recommendations. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/01/21/137783/algorithms-criminal-justice-ai/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/01/21/137783/algorithm...
- PeterStuer 6y ago
  "The Machine" excuse has been used for every technology in existence, but that does not mean attributing agency to machines is acceptable. Those deploying and operating the 'machines' are accountable as no other option makes sense. Note that I am not arguing for nor against the specific use of the facial recognition systems by city officials.
  - bskap 6y ago
    Are you talking about in theory or in reality? Who or what do you think the people deploying these technologies are accountable to, and what prevents the accountability system from accepting "I did it because the algorithm said I should' as a valid justification?
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I'm pretty sure most people don't accept food from a chef that explicitly treats toilet water, although your main point about how the food industry operates is correct.
trevyn 6y ago
>Actually that is exactly how the food industry operates. Even worse, if you have a shipment that is 20% fecal matter, you can use it as long as you dilute it with other batches to the legal proportion.

bskap 6y ago

We're already giving people harsher treatment because The Machine says they deserve it, with no ability for defendants to question The Machine and no one accountable for v its recommendations. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/01/21/137783/algorithms-criminal-justice-ai/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/01/21/137783/algorithm...

PeterStuer 6y ago
"The Machine" excuse has been used for every technology in existence, but that does not mean attributing agency to machines is acceptable. Those deploying and operating the 'machines' are accountable as no other option makes sense. Note that I am not arguing for nor against the specific use of the facial recognition systems by city officials.
- bskap 6y ago
  Are you talking about in theory or in reality? Who or what do you think the people deploying these technologies are accountable to, and what prevents the accountability system from accepting "I did it because the algorithm said I should' as a valid justification?

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

I'm pretty sure most people don't accept food from a chef that explicitly treats toilet water, although your main point about how the food industry operates is correct.

trevyn 6y ago

>Actually that is exactly how the food industry operates. Even worse, if you have a shipment that is 20% fecal matter, you can use it as long as you dilute it with other batches to the legal proportion.