3 ms·

The options here are having the judge make the decision based on their gut feeling or they can make it based on data. It's really hard for me to believe that g

by treis 6y ago

The options here are having the judge make the decision based on their gut feeling or they can make it based on data. It's really hard for me to believe that gut feeling is better than data.

r00fus 6y ago
When the data is just as likely to be false as it is to be true then it’s worse than useless as a decision support mechanism.
cgriswald 6y ago
In both cases it doesn’t actually work. In the case of the data-backed nonsense it’s been used to justify holding people past their prison sentence. In this case it’s demonstrably worse. In the general case anything that’s “sciency” but doesn’t actually work leads to bad outcomes because people are far more likely to buy into it or at least less likely to call out obvious BS.
- treis 6y ago
  >In the case of the data-backed nonsense it’s been used to justify holding people past their prison sentence. I'm not sure why you assume that it's keeping people in prison and not being used to let them out.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23655017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23655017 (your GGP) and supposedly originally https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7-30a0-9a0a-3ff76e8bfe58 https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7... : > In America this is being used to decide whether to keep them in jail even after they have served their full sentence. That may not be true, but the reason why they assume that is that basch and/or the BBC said that.
ByteJockey 6y ago
And if you want to use that argument for a parole hearing that's... I can accept that as an argument. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand the reasons someone might have for holding that position. We're talking about holding people after their sentence is done. That's not ok.
danShumway 6y ago
> It's really hard for me to believe that gut feeling is better than data. This is exactly the problem. People assume that data means something by virtue of it being data. Having a judge make a decision based on gut feelings might not be any more accurate, but at least people wouldn't assume that it was accurate. People would look at it and realize that it was arbitrary. If the data isn't giving good results, then at least we should use a system that makes that fact obvious. > A recent very critical report of such systems said that the margin of error for individuals could be as great as between 5% and 95% At a certain point, it would be just as accurate, and far more honest, for us to just flip a few coins. Get it out in the open what we're doing. Get rid of the built-in assumptions people have that the system is fair or predictive just because it's based on data. Make observers live with the fact that it's arbitrary.

by treis 6y ago

The options here are having the judge make the decision based on their gut feeling or they can make it based on data. It's really hard for me to believe that gut feeling is better than data.

r00fus 6y ago

When the data is just as likely to be false as it is to be true then it’s worse than useless as a decision support mechanism.

cgriswald 6y ago

In both cases it doesn’t actually work. In the case of the data-backed nonsense it’s been used to justify holding people past their prison sentence. In this case it’s demonstrably worse. In the general case anything that’s “sciency” but doesn’t actually work leads to bad outcomes because people are far more likely to buy into it or at least less likely to call out obvious BS.

treis 6y ago
>In the case of the data-backed nonsense it’s been used to justify holding people past their prison sentence. I'm not sure why you assume that it's keeping people in prison and not being used to let them out.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23655017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23655017 (your GGP) and supposedly originally https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7-30a0-9a0a-3ff76e8bfe58 https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7... : > In America this is being used to decide whether to keep them in jail even after they have served their full sentence. That may not be true, but the reason why they assume that is that basch and/or the BBC said that.

ByteJockey 6y ago

And if you want to use that argument for a parole hearing that's... I can accept that as an argument. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand the reasons someone might have for holding that position. We're talking about holding people after their sentence is done. That's not ok.

danShumway 6y ago

> It's really hard for me to believe that gut feeling is better than data. This is exactly the problem. People assume that data means something by virtue of it being data. Having a judge make a decision based on gut feelings might not be any more accurate, but at least people wouldn't assume that it was accurate. People would look at it and realize that it was arbitrary. If the data isn't giving good results, then at least we should use a system that makes that fact obvious. > A recent very critical report of such systems said that the margin of error for individuals could be as great as between 5% and 95% At a certain point, it would be just as accurate, and far more honest, for us to just flip a few coins. Get it out in the open what we're doing. Get rid of the built-in assumptions people have that the system is fair or predictive just because it's based on data. Make observers live with the fact that it's arbitrary.