4 ms·

An algorithm is just a method saved in a computer. It is neither good nor bad, or rather it could be good or bad depending on how well it works. You’re going t

An algorithm is just a method saved in a computer. It is neither good nor bad, or rather it could be good or bad depending on how well it works. You’re going to need to do better than that for this crowd.

cxr 2y ago
Not to say that the journalists and editors involved with putting out clickbait like this don't deserve to be harangued (they do), but: > An algorithm is just a method saved in a computer No it isn't "just" that. It's quite a bit more specific than that. For a sequence of steps to be an algorithm, it has to: 1. provably terminate, with— 2. the correct answer (Every time, that is.) Recommender systems and other programs created to help with things that have no correct answer belong to a class of procedures that are the exact opposite of what the word "algorithm" is supposed to communicate. Anyone who has gotten paid to write something that involved the word "algorithm" in the last 10 years should give serious consideration to jumping off a bridge.
- cperciva 2y ago
  Well, no. A Monte Carlo algorithm is still an algorithm.
  - cxr 2y ago
    Those aren't algorithms, either. "Monte Carlo algorithm" is just the product of sloppy language use from people involved with the field instead of outsiders.
- tedunangst 2y ago
  Newton's Method?
  - cxr 2y ago
    Exactly. Not an algorithm.
- PhilipRoman 2y ago
  Do you think probabilistic algorithms are not "real" algorithms? I guess this page is total bullshit then: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_algorithm https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_algorithm
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
naijaboiler 2y ago
No Sir. Algos are bad. they inherently carry a huge risk to accentuate the biases of the datasets from which algos were created. I always get mad when people suggest algos are neutral or objective. they are neither. They are often just tools to perpetuate inequities in plain site.
- lurk2 2y ago
  > Algos are bad. they inherently carry a huge risk to accentuate the biases of the datasets from which algos were created. They do not do this “inherently.” They don’t do it at all if they don’t have or create a feedback mechanism.
  - whatever1 2y ago
    On the contrary algorithms should be relying on feedback and adapt if the underlying assumptions do not hold anymore. Problem is we have not automated the process of identifying and updating the assumptions for a given problem.
drewcoo 2y ago
An algorithm does not require a computer. A set of rules followed by anything (including humans) is an algorithm. Stories like this blame computers because that's easier on everyone's reputations than blaming the people who made the rules.
Terr_ 2y ago
I think the problem here isn't so much that there is a formal process... but that (A) the person affected has no agency and (B) it has been implemented in such a way that nobody will notice or care when injustice-bugs occur.
- spwa4 2y ago
  You mean, it's been implemented in such a way that no politician can be blamed when things inevitably go wrong due to what this really is: savings on the budget of one organization, pushing the costs somewhere else as opposed to actually improving society/economy. I've always wondered this about the many algorithms that keep getting used. They're being kept out of democratic decision making. It's always a committee somewhere in the executive that decides on the algorithm, not parliament, or any kind of elected board. They are implemented as a cost control.
endominus 2y ago
Eh. This crowd isn't where this article is aimed. Remember the British minister who asked when Microsoft was going to 'get rid' of algorithms? https://www.windowscentral.com/british-government-reported-asked-when-microsoft-would-get-rid-algorithms https://www.windowscentral.com/british-government-reported-a... (previously discussed here; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30736887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30736887)
florbnit 2y ago
I’m. Sorry that you feel that way. We applied an algorithm and since 40 of the other 100 people who share that opinion with you committed drug related crimes we have decided to put you in jail without chance of parole. I hope you understand that while this may seem unfair this decision is not good or bad, it’s just the outcome of the algorithm saved in a computer.
- Tarq0n 2y ago
  The problem in your example is threefold: 1) what are my rights, I.e. Against what constraints was the algorithm implemented? 2) "we have decided": who is "we", it's actually good that a particular entity is responsible for the output of the algorithm, computers can't be responsible for things. 3) is there appeal or human review? If a bad algorithm is part of some process that affects me I'm going to ask what my rights are, who's responsible and where I can appeal, not the specifics of the algorithm.
  - florbnit 2y ago
    Your original argument was that an algorithm cannot be bad, and now you are countering my point by arguing that the algorithm is bad if it ignores your rights, is solely responsible for the implemented outcome and doesn’t include any input for human review or appeal. Funny enough I read not that long ago about a case where an algorithm broke all those three points! Can’t remember where of the top of my mind, I think it was the Louisiana Prison board or something like that. But never mind that, you are arguing against yourself so I’ll kindly step aside and let you at you.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      > But never mind that, you are arguing against yourself so I’ll kindly step aside and let you at you. They are not OP. Even if they are, why not just engage with the points they raise?
- Vaslo 2y ago
  Thank you for creating a textbook strawman argument to share

cxr 2y ago

Not to say that the journalists and editors involved with putting out clickbait like this don't deserve to be harangued (they do), but: > An algorithm is just a method saved in a computer No it isn't "just" that. It's quite a bit more specific than that. For a sequence of steps to be an algorithm, it has to: 1. provably terminate, with— 2. the correct answer (Every time, that is.) Recommender systems and other programs created to help with things that have no correct answer belong to a class of procedures that are the exact opposite of what the word "algorithm" is supposed to communicate. Anyone who has gotten paid to write something that involved the word "algorithm" in the last 10 years should give serious consideration to jumping off a bridge.

cperciva 2y ago
Well, no. A Monte Carlo algorithm is still an algorithm.
- cxr 2y ago
  Those aren't algorithms, either. "Monte Carlo algorithm" is just the product of sloppy language use from people involved with the field instead of outsiders.
tedunangst 2y ago
Newton's Method?
- cxr 2y ago
  Exactly. Not an algorithm.
PhilipRoman 2y ago
Do you think probabilistic algorithms are not "real" algorithms? I guess this page is total bullshit then: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_algorithm https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_algorithm
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

naijaboiler 2y ago

No Sir. Algos are bad. they inherently carry a huge risk to accentuate the biases of the datasets from which algos were created. I always get mad when people suggest algos are neutral or objective. they are neither. They are often just tools to perpetuate inequities in plain site.

lurk2 2y ago
> Algos are bad. they inherently carry a huge risk to accentuate the biases of the datasets from which algos were created. They do not do this “inherently.” They don’t do it at all if they don’t have or create a feedback mechanism.
- whatever1 2y ago
  On the contrary algorithms should be relying on feedback and adapt if the underlying assumptions do not hold anymore. Problem is we have not automated the process of identifying and updating the assumptions for a given problem.

drewcoo 2y ago

An algorithm does not require a computer. A set of rules followed by anything (including humans) is an algorithm. Stories like this blame computers because that's easier on everyone's reputations than blaming the people who made the rules.

Terr_ 2y ago

I think the problem here isn't so much that there is a formal process... but that (A) the person affected has no agency and (B) it has been implemented in such a way that nobody will notice or care when injustice-bugs occur.

spwa4 2y ago
You mean, it's been implemented in such a way that no politician can be blamed when things inevitably go wrong due to what this really is: savings on the budget of one organization, pushing the costs somewhere else as opposed to actually improving society/economy. I've always wondered this about the many algorithms that keep getting used. They're being kept out of democratic decision making. It's always a committee somewhere in the executive that decides on the algorithm, not parliament, or any kind of elected board. They are implemented as a cost control.

endominus 2y ago

Eh. This crowd isn't where this article is aimed. Remember the British minister who asked when Microsoft was going to 'get rid' of algorithms? https://www.windowscentral.com/british-government-reported-asked-when-microsoft-would-get-rid-algorithms https://www.windowscentral.com/british-government-reported-a... (previously discussed here; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30736887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30736887)

florbnit 2y ago

I’m. Sorry that you feel that way. We applied an algorithm and since 40 of the other 100 people who share that opinion with you committed drug related crimes we have decided to put you in jail without chance of parole. I hope you understand that while this may seem unfair this decision is not good or bad, it’s just the outcome of the algorithm saved in a computer.

Tarq0n 2y ago
The problem in your example is threefold: 1) what are my rights, I.e. Against what constraints was the algorithm implemented? 2) "we have decided": who is "we", it's actually good that a particular entity is responsible for the output of the algorithm, computers can't be responsible for things. 3) is there appeal or human review? If a bad algorithm is part of some process that affects me I'm going to ask what my rights are, who's responsible and where I can appeal, not the specifics of the algorithm.
- florbnit 2y ago
  Your original argument was that an algorithm cannot be bad, and now you are countering my point by arguing that the algorithm is bad if it ignores your rights, is solely responsible for the implemented outcome and doesn’t include any input for human review or appeal. Funny enough I read not that long ago about a case where an algorithm broke all those three points! Can’t remember where of the top of my mind, I think it was the Louisiana Prison board or something like that. But never mind that, you are arguing against yourself so I’ll kindly step aside and let you at you.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    > But never mind that, you are arguing against yourself so I’ll kindly step aside and let you at you. They are not OP. Even if they are, why not just engage with the points they raise?
Vaslo 2y ago
Thank you for creating a textbook strawman argument to share