> problem was the processes around the algorithm not its existence... > the problem is not the algorithm, its the investigators. Indeed. Going deeper, the 'pro

> problem was the processes around the algorithm not its existence... > the problem is not the algorithm, its the investigators. Indeed. Going deeper, the 'problem' is a social/cultural belief that doing X at scale, using a computer, is somehow more ethical than having a bunch of people do the same immoral thing. Computer automation and algorithms become a moral justification (or at least a Hail Mary) for immoral acts. There is at once a diffusion of responsibility, a causal disconnection of consequential acts, a reassignment of responsibility, and - given that we bow down to machines as our masters rather than our tools - a change from choice to a belief in the "inevitability" of unstoppable processes. Together these make us no longer question whether: 1) Computers are more reliable, consistent and accurate than people 2) Computers are fairer/just 3) Computers are more comprehensive/inclusive or selective/prejudicial 4) Computers are actually economically more effective Of course, this has been going on since the 1960s at least and was part of "systems analysis for automation". I think we have regressed. Whereas it was commonplace to sceptically question technology in the 60s and 70s, today we start with the assumption that it must be "better" and then have to figure out how maybe it's not.