3 ms·

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

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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
Thank you for creating a textbook strawman argument to share

3 ms·

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

by florbnit 1y ago

Tarq0n 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
Thank you for creating a textbook strawman argument to share