4 ms·

> [B]ureaucrats can be expected to embrace a technology that helps to create the illusion that decisions are not under their control Isn't it the responsibilit

by lloeki 2y ago

> [B]ureaucrats can be expected to embrace a technology that helps to create the illusion that decisions are not under their control Isn't it the responsibility of the bureaucrat to use a computer system and whatever its output is? "GPS said I should drive off of a cliff" doesn't seem like a very potent argument to dismiss decisional responsibility. The driver is still responsible for where the car goes. The only case where the responsibility would shift to the computer - or rather the humans having made the computerized thingy - would be a Pentium FDIV-class bug, i.e computer system produces incorrect output+ from correct input, from which an earnest decision is then based on. + assuming it is indistinguishable from correct output.

svilen_dobrev 2y ago
> "GPS said I should drive off of a cliff" for a bureaucrat, it's "GPS said WHO-EVER-ELSE should drive off of a cliff." Their problem. Adding, Have a good day..
_Algernon_ 2y ago
The difference is that bureaucrats make decisions on behalf of others so incentives are less aligned or not aligned at all. If you drive a car and the GPS tells you to drive of the cliff, you wont do it because you don't want to die. If some bureaucrat rejects somebody's health care claim leading to them dying prematurely, it's just a normal Tuesday.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
Try to do something with a bank in a branch office. Clerk: can't do anything about it, the system doesn't let me. I can get you the manager. Branch manager: well, I can't do anything about it, "the computer says no". Let me make a call to regional office ... (10 minutes of dialing and 30 minutes of conversation later) ... The system clearly says X, and the process is such that Y cannot be done before Z clears. Even the regional office can't speed Z up. You: explains again why this is all bullshit, and Z shouldn't even be possible to be triggered for you Branch manager: I can put a request with the bank's IT department to look into it, but they won't read it until at least tomorrow morning, and probably won't process it earlier than in a week or so. At this point, you either give up or send your dispute to the central office via registered mail (and, depending on its nature, might want to retain a lawyer). Most customers who didn't give up earlier, will give up here. Was the system wrong? Probably. Like everyone, banks too have bugs in the system, on top of a steady stream of human errors. Thanks to centralized IT systems, the low-level employees are quite literally unable to help you navigate weird "corner case" scenarios. The System is big, complicated, handles everything, no one except a small number of people is allowed to touch it, and those people are mostly techies and not bank management. In this setup, anyone can individually claim they're either powerless or not in the position to make those decisions, and keep redirecting you around from one department to another until you either get tired or threaten to sue.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  The real difference is that automated decisions in bank software systems are risk mitigation failsafes, and only make "negative decisions", the kind that refuse something that the bank is at a liberty to refuse. So they never need to be held accountable in this sense, they never choose the risky path. Bank automation is like a human first making a "yes" decision, then calling a lawyer to ask if they should go ahead with it, and changing their mind if a lawyer advises not to go ahead. orig | auto | result no | n/a | no yes | yes | yes yes | no | no

by lloeki 2y ago

svilen_dobrev 2y ago

> "GPS said I should drive off of a cliff" for a bureaucrat, it's "GPS said WHO-EVER-ELSE should drive off of a cliff." Their problem. Adding, Have a good day..

_Algernon_ 2y ago

The difference is that bureaucrats make decisions on behalf of others so incentives are less aligned or not aligned at all. If you drive a car and the GPS tells you to drive of the cliff, you wont do it because you don't want to die. If some bureaucrat rejects somebody's health care claim leading to them dying prematurely, it's just a normal Tuesday.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

Try to do something with a bank in a branch office. Clerk: can't do anything about it, the system doesn't let me. I can get you the manager. Branch manager: well, I can't do anything about it, "the computer says no". Let me make a call to regional office ... (10 minutes of dialing and 30 minutes of conversation later) ... The system clearly says X, and the process is such that Y cannot be done before Z clears. Even the regional office can't speed Z up. You: explains again why this is all bullshit, and Z shouldn't even be possible to be triggered for you Branch manager: I can put a request with the bank's IT department to look into it, but they won't read it until at least tomorrow morning, and probably won't process it earlier than in a week or so. At this point, you either give up or send your dispute to the central office via registered mail (and, depending on its nature, might want to retain a lawyer). Most customers who didn't give up earlier, will give up here. Was the system wrong? Probably. Like everyone, banks too have bugs in the system, on top of a steady stream of human errors. Thanks to centralized IT systems, the low-level employees are quite literally unable to help you navigate weird "corner case" scenarios. The System is big, complicated, handles everything, no one except a small number of people is allowed to touch it, and those people are mostly techies and not bank management. In this setup, anyone can individually claim they're either powerless or not in the position to make those decisions, and keep redirecting you around from one department to another until you either get tired or threaten to sue.

yencabulator 2y ago
The real difference is that automated decisions in bank software systems are risk mitigation failsafes, and only make "negative decisions", the kind that refuse something that the bank is at a liberty to refuse. So they never need to be held accountable in this sense, they never choose the risky path. Bank automation is like a human first making a "yes" decision, then calling a lawyer to ask if they should go ahead with it, and changing their mind if a lawyer advises not to go ahead. orig | auto | result no | n/a | no yes | yes | yes yes | no | no