> If an open-source algorithm is flawed, it is harder to undo the damage than if the software came from one proprietary—and accountable—company. Both the compa

> If an open-source algorithm is flawed, it is harder to undo the damage than if the software came from one proprietary—and accountable—company. Both the companies implementing and using the system need to be responsible and accountable. Whether or not the software is open source. In their example of AI being used to prescribe sentencing, both the judicial district using the AI need to be responsible and accountable as well as the vendor selling, implementing, and operating the system. The software being open source at least gives a chance for external eyes to evaluate a portion of the system (given that the data set might be private.) With proprietary software we have to rely on the honesty of companies and voluntary transparency or any whistle blowers which may come forward. In the example criminal sentencing example both the judicial district might be incompetent or biased and the vendor could be incompetent or greedy and not communicate system biases since it may hurt their brand or contract or growth. It seems very clear to me that openness and transparency is key to combating bias or manipulation. And open source foists a minimum of openness into this.