4 ms·

This phrasing is already conceding half the battle. A computer or “algorithm” doesn’t decide goals and values on its own. The computer executes an algorithm t

This phrasing is already conceding half the battle. A computer or “algorithm” doesn’t decide goals and values on its own. The computer executes an algorithm that efficiently implements the values of decisions of the people in charge of developing and deploying the software (and their bosses). Businesses have done a great job of laundering controversial and sometimes illegal decisions through “algorithms” as though they were some kind of independent entity.

Buttons840 5y ago
The "Uno Reverse Card" for this situation is to ask why we need executives and management when the algorithm does everything. The answer is, as you say, the algorithm isn't actually doing anything really, just what its owners would have done themselves.
- ahelwer 5y ago
  I don't think that's quite true. It's like the difference between surveilling someone by tailing them and surveilling them with an automated network of cameras equipped with facial recognition. Scale matters. Much work (especially work we call unskilled) is rendered tolerable by the small human moments you have with your coworkers, a conversation out back when taking out the trash or whatever. Management sees any such thing as "time theft" or a similarly dystopian term and would like to eradicate it, but they cannot be everywhere at once. An algorithm can be everywhere at once. So the conversation "maybe people should not actually have to be doing productive things the entire time they are being paid" never really had to be had before, because people would just do things to make their job tolerable. But now that such simple pleasures can actually be eradicated the conversation does have to be had. There are other domains where analogous conversations should be had. Many people agree with their laws in the general and even specific senses, but almost nobody would want to live in a society where all the laws are enforced perfectly 100% of the time. Occasional lawbreaking is necessary for society to function. Anybody who objects to this should really think through what they're wishing for.
  - lupire 5y ago
    That's a different topic -- how much power one person should be allowed to have. It's still the person's power.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
zwkrt 5y ago
I agree mostly but i think that saying “the algorithm is my boss” really does help the discussion along. I had a friend (“S”) who on hard times sighed up to deliver through uber eats. Their entire tenure included no human interaction. S worked for about 3 weeks, got some bad reviews for delivering food cold, and were “fired” all without ever talking to anyone or seeing anyones face. They would ironically (but truthfully!) claim that their phone was the worst boss they ever had. Its true that somewhere behind the scenes is a set of people making the algorithm and a set of people implementing it, but for the end user/worker there is no human, no realistic arbitration, no negotiation, no favors, no coworkers, no smiles, no understanding, and no recourse. It reminds me of yesterday’s “Did I just lose $500k?” post. When S got fired it may as well have been mandated by god. ADDENDUM: I don't want to toot our horn too much, but also remember that as a member of this forum you are probably an order of magnitude better at navigating complex institutions, understanding business objectives, understanding the “intent” if a piece of algorithmic technology, and advocating for yourself than the average person who picks up gig work. To many people it is literally magic, and the further your boss is toward being magical the closer you are to being a slave to them. And I don't think I am being melodramatic with my choice of words.
- lupire 5y ago
  The phone wasn't their boss. Uber's bilionaire management was their boss. Phone was the scapegoat.
  - zwkrt 5y ago
    Agreeing with the sibling comment, it would be much better if Uber’s CEO was their boss. S could call him every time a restaurant was late on their order, negotiate for sick pay, and ask him to help shield from the shit higher-ups are giving S. I actually think it is more disingenuous to say that the CEO is the boss than it is to say the phone is.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    I run a (non-tech) business and have automated out some of the day-to-day work to a set of Python scripts I wrote. As weird as this probably sounds, I gave many of the scripts silly names and a couple of them pretend "personalities" (ie error messages/prompts will be phrased as if there's an imaginary character inside the machine). To call software a scapegoat or "not their boss" seems a bit disingenuous. Each algorithm or script has its own goals, its own quirks and its own strengths and weaknesses, just like a human manager. Sometimes these quirks or misaligned goals lead to good people getting fired, just like with a human manager. These algorithms also replaceable and retrainable by the top-level brass, again just like a human manager. To me, what seems wrong is not that machines are making decisions, but that there is no appeals process for the people who've had their lives ruined by such a decision.
cblconfederate 5y ago
The solution is to move the burden of accountability from low-level management (which is replaced by machines) to the people in charge. CEOs should not be immune from jail

Buttons840 5y ago

The "Uno Reverse Card" for this situation is to ask why we need executives and management when the algorithm does everything. The answer is, as you say, the algorithm isn't actually doing anything really, just what its owners would have done themselves.

ahelwer 5y ago
I don't think that's quite true. It's like the difference between surveilling someone by tailing them and surveilling them with an automated network of cameras equipped with facial recognition. Scale matters. Much work (especially work we call unskilled) is rendered tolerable by the small human moments you have with your coworkers, a conversation out back when taking out the trash or whatever. Management sees any such thing as "time theft" or a similarly dystopian term and would like to eradicate it, but they cannot be everywhere at once. An algorithm can be everywhere at once. So the conversation "maybe people should not actually have to be doing productive things the entire time they are being paid" never really had to be had before, because people would just do things to make their job tolerable. But now that such simple pleasures can actually be eradicated the conversation does have to be had. There are other domains where analogous conversations should be had. Many people agree with their laws in the general and even specific senses, but almost nobody would want to live in a society where all the laws are enforced perfectly 100% of the time. Occasional lawbreaking is necessary for society to function. Anybody who objects to this should really think through what they're wishing for.
- lupire 5y ago
  That's a different topic -- how much power one person should be allowed to have. It's still the person's power.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

zwkrt 5y ago

I agree mostly but i think that saying “the algorithm is my boss” really does help the discussion along. I had a friend (“S”) who on hard times sighed up to deliver through uber eats. Their entire tenure included no human interaction. S worked for about 3 weeks, got some bad reviews for delivering food cold, and were “fired” all without ever talking to anyone or seeing anyones face. They would ironically (but truthfully!) claim that their phone was the worst boss they ever had. Its true that somewhere behind the scenes is a set of people making the algorithm and a set of people implementing it, but for the end user/worker there is no human, no realistic arbitration, no negotiation, no favors, no coworkers, no smiles, no understanding, and no recourse. It reminds me of yesterday’s “Did I just lose $500k?” post. When S got fired it may as well have been mandated by god. ADDENDUM: I don't want to toot our horn too much, but also remember that as a member of this forum you are probably an order of magnitude better at navigating complex institutions, understanding business objectives, understanding the “intent” if a piece of algorithmic technology, and advocating for yourself than the average person who picks up gig work. To many people it is literally magic, and the further your boss is toward being magical the closer you are to being a slave to them. And I don't think I am being melodramatic with my choice of words.

lupire 5y ago
The phone wasn't their boss. Uber's bilionaire management was their boss. Phone was the scapegoat.
- zwkrt 5y ago
  Agreeing with the sibling comment, it would be much better if Uber’s CEO was their boss. S could call him every time a restaurant was late on their order, negotiate for sick pay, and ask him to help shield from the shit higher-ups are giving S. I actually think it is more disingenuous to say that the CEO is the boss than it is to say the phone is.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  I run a (non-tech) business and have automated out some of the day-to-day work to a set of Python scripts I wrote. As weird as this probably sounds, I gave many of the scripts silly names and a couple of them pretend "personalities" (ie error messages/prompts will be phrased as if there's an imaginary character inside the machine). To call software a scapegoat or "not their boss" seems a bit disingenuous. Each algorithm or script has its own goals, its own quirks and its own strengths and weaknesses, just like a human manager. Sometimes these quirks or misaligned goals lead to good people getting fired, just like with a human manager. These algorithms also replaceable and retrainable by the top-level brass, again just like a human manager. To me, what seems wrong is not that machines are making decisions, but that there is no appeals process for the people who've had their lives ruined by such a decision.

cblconfederate 5y ago

The solution is to move the burden of accountability from low-level management (which is replaced by machines) to the people in charge. CEOs should not be immune from jail