3 ms·

No, the implication is that we believe that these algorithms are non-faulty and therefore throw away all the provisions for recourse and review that exist with

by _djo_ 5y ago

No, the implication is that we believe that these algorithms are non-faulty and therefore throw away all the provisions for recourse and review that exist with human-driven systems. There is no nuance, no leeway, and no way for you to reason your case with a thinking human on the other side of the decision. The algorithms & systems are also almost always completely opaque in their workings, with neither the person on the receiving end nor the company's staff having any insight into why they made decisions or what data was used. Using algorithms for life-affecting decisions like this would not be nearly as bad if you had a reasonable ability to appeal and have the decision be taken as final. It doesn't even have to be AI, or an algorithm. The British Post Office Horizon scandal is an example of lives ruined by an assumption that accounting software could never be wrong.

pmelendez 5y ago
>No, the implication is that we believe that these algorithms are non-faulty I think that falls under OC's argument and it seems eventually solvable. Still, what you are pointing is a human bias. Humans have been taking similar unfair decisions without possibility for recourse or review since forever, so it would be interesting to have a review mechanism in general.
- _djo_ 5y ago
  >I think that falls under OC's argument and it seems eventually solvable. Not solvable by purely technical means and the idea that the AI or algorithms will just keep getting better, which is what the OP seemed to be saying. > Still, what you are pointing is a human bias. Humans have been taking similar unfair decisions without possibility for recourse or review since forever, so it would be interesting to have a review mechanism in general. Sure. Having systems be human-driven doesn't inherently make them better. But over time the recognition of human fallibility has led legislators to enforce the creation of systems of review and recourse in many cases.

by _djo_ 5y ago

pmelendez 5y ago

>No, the implication is that we believe that these algorithms are non-faulty I think that falls under OC's argument and it seems eventually solvable. Still, what you are pointing is a human bias. Humans have been taking similar unfair decisions without possibility for recourse or review since forever, so it would be interesting to have a review mechanism in general.

_djo_ 5y ago
>I think that falls under OC's argument and it seems eventually solvable. Not solvable by purely technical means and the idea that the AI or algorithms will just keep getting better, which is what the OP seemed to be saying. > Still, what you are pointing is a human bias. Humans have been taking similar unfair decisions without possibility for recourse or review since forever, so it would be interesting to have a review mechanism in general. Sure. Having systems be human-driven doesn't inherently make them better. But over time the recognition of human fallibility has led legislators to enforce the creation of systems of review and recourse in many cases.