3 ms·
This was a very clear way of putting it, thank you. Maybe it’s just me, but I find much of the discussion about algorithmic bias a bit fuzzy. Replacing “this a
by glial 6y ago
This was a very clear way of putting it, thank you. Maybe it’s just me, but I find much of the discussion about algorithmic bias a bit fuzzy. Replacing “this algorithm is biased” with “this algorithm isn’t really optimizing what we intended it to” seems like a good step, with the added benefit that it requires people to be explicit about their objective function.
- Proven 6y ago> Replacing “this algorithm is biased” with “this algorithm isn’t really optimizing what we intended it to” seems like a good step, Why not simply: "we are biased" (that is, busybodies complaining about bias). From GP: > This is a thorny issue, though, as I've made some assumptions above and plenty of people will disagree with them, on various grounds. It's not a thorny issue. No one has to listen to algos. If your algo is buggy and suggests to kill rather than hire a candidate, would you? Secondly, how is anyone's business what kind of algos I run in course of operating a privately owned company? The thorny issue is how did we get to this situation where property rights have become so weak that busybodies of all sorts feel entitled enough to order others how they ought to use their property (that is, data and algos).