4 ms·

Good faith is a lower bar than you think it is. Basically you can't screw someone over by firing them. "Examples of bad faith terminations include an employer

by luhn 5y ago

Good faith is a lower bar than you think it is. Basically you can't screw someone over by firing them. "Examples of bad faith terminations include an employer firing an older employee to avoid paying retirement benefits or terminating a salesman just before a large commission on a completed sale is payable. There have been relatively few cases in which employers were found liable under an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing theory." Being fired by an opaque, capricious algorithm is not bad faith. It's likely more legally sound for Amazon than firing someone the "old fashioned way"—There's no potential for personal biases to get in the way, and I'm sure the software squirrels away all the necessary documentation should a wrongful termination suit arise.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Being fired by an opaque, capricious algorithm is not bad faith. It's likely more legally sound for Amazon than firing someone the "old fashioned way"—There's no potential for personal biases to get in the way, and I'm sure the software squirrels away all the necessary documentation should a wrongful termination suit arise. Given the well-known problems with computer vision and race (and the lighting-related problems this have which have similar source), I’d be very surprised if this didn't constitute disparate impact racial discrimination if someone actually did the legwork to gather the relevant data.
cryptoz 5y ago
> Basically you can't screw someone over by firing them. Every person in the article seems like they were screwed over when they were fired. All of them. > Being fired by an opaque, capricious algorithm is not bad faith. Yes, it is. When the 'algorithm' is already known by executives to make horrible mistakes, it definitely is. From the article: “Executives knew this was gonna shit the bed,” > There's no potential for personal biases to get in the way, I do not agree with this at all. Someone - people - wrote the code that they use to do the firings. Just because a 'computer' took the steps does not mean that there is "no potential" for personal biases to get in the way. In fact there is unlimited potential for that, and it's sneaky, because you can just blame the software! > and I'm sure the software squirrels away all the necessary documentation should a wrongful termination suit arise. Are you really sure about this? Why are you so sure? I personally would be confident that it does not do that. If it did, wouldn't it be possible for it to not make these decisions in the first place?

by luhn 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Being fired by an opaque, capricious algorithm is not bad faith. It's likely more legally sound for Amazon than firing someone the "old fashioned way"—There's no potential for personal biases to get in the way, and I'm sure the software squirrels away all the necessary documentation should a wrongful termination suit arise. Given the well-known problems with computer vision and race (and the lighting-related problems this have which have similar source), I’d be very surprised if this didn't constitute disparate impact racial discrimination if someone actually did the legwork to gather the relevant data.

cryptoz 5y ago

> Basically you can't screw someone over by firing them. Every person in the article seems like they were screwed over when they were fired. All of them. > Being fired by an opaque, capricious algorithm is not bad faith. Yes, it is. When the 'algorithm' is already known by executives to make horrible mistakes, it definitely is. From the article: “Executives knew this was gonna shit the bed,” > There's no potential for personal biases to get in the way, I do not agree with this at all. Someone - people - wrote the code that they use to do the firings. Just because a 'computer' took the steps does not mean that there is "no potential" for personal biases to get in the way. In fact there is unlimited potential for that, and it's sneaky, because you can just blame the software! > and I'm sure the software squirrels away all the necessary documentation should a wrongful termination suit arise. Are you really sure about this? Why are you so sure? I personally would be confident that it does not do that. If it did, wouldn't it be possible for it to not make these decisions in the first place?