3 ms·
The issue with sexism isn't the intent - it's the result. It isn't that the algorithm is sexist, but rather that the inputs have some material that is hostile t
by ebiester 6y ago
The issue with sexism isn't the intent - it's the result. It isn't that the algorithm is sexist, but rather that the inputs have some material that is hostile to women, intentionally or unintentionally. (Consider that the word whore is rarely, if ever, used positively.)
This is GIGO at its core. That means we have to account for it. More importantly, other predictive models are being used in more life-altering ways, such as lending. The pattern matcher may not know that the reason it is saying "no" is rooted in racism. The people selecting the inputs may not even know. But that's all the more reason we have to be careful with its result.
The result is what matters, not the intent.
- Chris2048 6y agoBut if the algorithm does what it is asked, then why do we call it sexist/racist, instead of questioning if if was asked to do the right thing? Someone is in charge of some life-altering system, yet has no responsibility to verify the results? someone chooses to use a historical pattern-matching an algorithm to make lending choices. someone gives biased text to an algorithm and asks "more like this plz". Is there no responsibility in the architects? Can I shoot someone, and call the gun a murderer?
- Joker_vD 6y ago> But if the algorithm does what it is asked, then why do we call it sexist/racist For the same reason why we call someone who, when asked to do what we call sexist/racist, went on and did that instead of questioning it, racist/sexist. Humans are not some mystical spiritual metaphysical entities, they have decision-making algorithms (with parameters set through life experience) inside of them, and execute those algorithms. By the way, you can hire an assassin to shoot someone, and call her a murderer, not that it would exonerate you.