3 ms·

Algorithm designers are human. You can hold them accountable.

by darawk 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago
This can be done by requiring them to be open about the algorithm, hence “don’t allow black box algorithms”.
- darawk 5y ago
  The algorithm may be e.g. a DNN which is quite opaque, even if its inputs are revealed.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    If technical limitations are incompatible with social concerns, the social concerns are what needs to take priority. If society wants to make sure algorithms are fair, it may decide one option is to ban black boxes algorithms — if DNNs can’t be comprehended, that means no DNNs. Alternatively, if society says the only way to have a black box is to not compete in the domain the black box judges, then Google et al will have to change their business models.
    - darawk 5y ago
      We don't even understand the consequences of the laws we pass in plain English. The idea that news feed algorithms are going to be meaningfully interpretable by anyone is just not practical, even if those algorithms are relatively simple. The other problem with transparent algorithms is that they are trivial to game. Gaming is almost certainly worse than obscurity.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        A. Laws aren’t written in plain English (or other vernacular), they are written in legalese. This is why lawyers have to train so long and why people should not represent themselves. B. Hence the alternative of “don’t let the company which runs the algorithm benefit from the results of that algorithm”, which I’ve phrased differently in each post on this topic. There are really clear conflicts of interests, even if you believe (as I happen to) that they are not exploiting their positions to the detriment of consumers: Google has products and services which people search for using Google’s own algorithm; Apple gets to write and enforce the rules of the App Store while having products in that store; Amazon sells both e-book readers and owns a e-book brand & platform, and would benefit from the Amazon.{com|co.uk|de|etc} stores listing the Kindle devices higher than they might otherwise be. Again, I am not claiming they are actually engaging in anti-consumer behaviours (that would be outside of my expertise, and anecdotally I don’t feel like I’m being harmed by any of this), I’m saying it’s a conflict of interest and society is suspicious.

Algorithm designers are human. You can hold them accountable.

by darawk 5y ago

Algorithm designers are human. You can hold them accountable.

ben_w 5y ago

This can be done by requiring them to be open about the algorithm, hence “don’t allow black box algorithms”.

darawk 5y ago
The algorithm may be e.g. a DNN which is quite opaque, even if its inputs are revealed.
- ben_w 5y ago
  If technical limitations are incompatible with social concerns, the social concerns are what needs to take priority. If society wants to make sure algorithms are fair, it may decide one option is to ban black boxes algorithms — if DNNs can’t be comprehended, that means no DNNs. Alternatively, if society says the only way to have a black box is to not compete in the domain the black box judges, then Google et al will have to change their business models.
  - darawk 5y ago
    We don't even understand the consequences of the laws we pass in plain English. The idea that news feed algorithms are going to be meaningfully interpretable by anyone is just not practical, even if those algorithms are relatively simple. The other problem with transparent algorithms is that they are trivial to game. Gaming is almost certainly worse than obscurity.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      A. Laws aren’t written in plain English (or other vernacular), they are written in legalese. This is why lawyers have to train so long and why people should not represent themselves. B. Hence the alternative of “don’t let the company which runs the algorithm benefit from the results of that algorithm”, which I’ve phrased differently in each post on this topic. There are really clear conflicts of interests, even if you believe (as I happen to) that they are not exploiting their positions to the detriment of consumers: Google has products and services which people search for using Google’s own algorithm; Apple gets to write and enforce the rules of the App Store while having products in that store; Amazon sells both e-book readers and owns a e-book brand & platform, and would benefit from the Amazon.{com|co.uk|de|etc} stores listing the Kindle devices higher than they might otherwise be. Again, I am not claiming they are actually engaging in anti-consumer behaviours (that would be outside of my expertise, and anecdotally I don’t feel like I’m being harmed by any of this), I’m saying it’s a conflict of interest and society is suspicious.