2 ms·
Your belief that this rule is wrong is an example of algorithm aversion. You feel like computer systems should be judged harshly despite mistaking far more rare
by scotty79 2y ago
Your belief that this rule is wrong is an example of algorithm aversion. You feel like computer systems should be judged harshly despite mistaking far more rarely than other things assessed in courts like police witness accounts or possibly even DNA evidence.
- smogcutter 2y agohttps://www.bbc.com/news/business-56718036.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56718036.amp
- scotty79 2y agoOf course there are mistakes. But still fewer than with other sources of evidence. DNA evidence is also trusted by default and yet: https://www.science.org/content/article/forensics-gone-wrong-when-dna-snares-innocent https://www.science.org/content/article/forensics-gone-wrong... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-finds-colorado-dna-analyst-intentionally-manipulated-dat-rcna142541 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-finds-col...
- smogcutter 2y agoYou’re missing the point. Of course there are (enormous, life-ruining) mistakes, but that’s not it. With software, generally the only people with the means to demonstrate the software is flawed are the people in control of the software and associated data.