3 ms·
> I mean they do give you some explanation, right? What makes you think that? Financial institutions are pretty notorious for refusing to explain or justify t
by michaelt 3y ago
> I mean they do give you some explanation, right?
What makes you think that?
Financial institutions are pretty notorious for refusing to explain or justify their 'fraud' detection and suchlike.
- j16sdiz 3y agoNot sure if it made into the final text. But some drafts of the GDPR have provisions for rights for explaination
- quelltext 3y agoSay your business is obviously identified as violating ToS, e.g. turns out to be a prohibited category, they can tell you and we've clearly seen cases on HN where explanations had been provided on account closure or asking support. There are cases like money laundering suspicions where they cannot though.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y agoBecause what would they say? The weight #9534 in neural cell #12956 in layer #34 exceeded value of 0.62f?
- caskstrength 3y ago> Because what would they say? The weight #9534 in neural cell #12956 in layer #34 exceeded value of 0.62f? No, obviously they would present the results of manual review conducted by humans after some ML algorithm flagged it. They do manual human review before randomly banning their customers, right? RIGHT?!
- tzs 3y agoA company could come up with a more understandable (and more actionable) explanation by running some what-if scenarios. Make small tweaks to the input to the neural net until the net stops rejecting the account, then tell the customer how those inputs differ from their actual data. For example, if tweaking the input to remove 5% of the chargebacks and the account passes you tell the customer their account was suspended for having too high a chargeback rate.