3 ms·

This is an interesting illustration of correlation vs causality. By "causality", I mean links which remain even after you change the composition of your inputs.

This is an interesting illustration of correlation vs causality. By "causality", I mean links which remain even after you change the composition of your inputs. See the do calculus, which is one of the better attempts to codify it: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5506v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5506v1.pdf http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r402.pdf http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r402.pdf The do calculus attempts to describe causality as the correlations which remain present when you change the underlying composition of the sample set. In a certain sense, that's equivalent to saying it's the correlations which are not caused by Simpson's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox So an interesting (but more difficult) question is whether the effects described here are causal or merely correlative. Personally I consider a causal link to be problematic, while a correlative one is completely innocuous. But regardless, it's important to distinguish the two.

pron 12y ago
Causality here makes absolutely no difference. These aren't research programs -- these are programs designed to increase revenue or some other arbitrary composite variable. They're not interested in why the correlations are there, only whether they can be used to increase revenue. The problem here is one of agency. Even true causality in humans is subject to change -- these are not laws of nature here but snapshots of human society, which changes all the time through political action -- but computers inadvertently perpetuate the existing condition, because they have no agency or interest in pursuing change. Perhaps this should be programmed: we could program computers for, say, affirmative action so that changing the status quo is one of their goals. But whether we do or not, the important thing to understand here is that once computers make decisions that influence humans, they are carrying out some political agenda (even if that is maintaining the status quo), whether we consciously program them or not.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  If a program has affirmative action built in, it is indeed serving a political agenda. AA is a causal relation: if (race == black) score += 10. But if it merely programmed to show ads for "Think Like a Man Too" to people who watched "Think Like a Man" based on a rule about sequels, there is no agenda there beyond profit. In both cases they are disproportionately targeting black people, but in the latter case it's only a composition effect. If you run the sequel targeting program on a group of asians who enjoyed "Think Like a Man", you'll get the same outcome. If you run the AA program on a group of asians, you won't. AA is a causal relationship on race, whereas the sequel rule is not. From previous interactions with you, I gather that you want statistical equality rather than equal treatment. That's great, but many people only care about equality of treatment. The do-calculus (or similar tools) helps with the latter problem, not the former.
  - pron 12y ago
    > But if it merely programmed to show ads for "Think Like a Man Too" to people who watched "Think Like a Man" based on a rule about sequels, there is no agenda there beyond profit. But that's not the dynamics. It's like, there's this whole universe out there with its own forces and dynamics, but you're saying -- nah, I don't care about that, I just care about the current snapshot. Suppose for a second that every school taught blacks to like that movie you referred to. You just created a (causal!!) proxy for race. So now if decisions pertaining to your future income are based on you having watched the movie, then all of a sudden they become pure of ideology? First, we create a proxy, then we discriminate based on the proxy, and finally we claim no political agenda because we're "only" discriminating on that proxy. > but in the latter case it's only a composition effect. Why does that make a difference? Why do you think targeting correlations is somehow less political than targeting race directly? Your direct intentions are not what matters here. What matters here is what future your actions serve. Any directed (i.e. non-noise) changes (or lack thereof) to human society caused by humans are politics[1]. > I gather that you want statistical equality rather than equal treatment Quite the opposite. If there's a society with built in mistreatment of certain races, then that mistreatment must first be addressed. You see equal treatment only because you don't try to learn how society works. Politics changes society all the time. What society looks like now is a result of yesterday's politics, and what it will look like tomorrow is a result of today's. You're simply suggesting implementing conservative politics that don't try to change society today. But there's absolutely no objective advantage to the current situation over a previous or a future one. That's what's known as the naturist, or is-ought, fallacy. What I find quite interesting is that as a a scientist, you take absolutely no interest in learning how things work and how we can change them. You want to hack computers but not society. How is that not a political agenda? P.S. I tried finding a good starting point to learning the topic (of politics), or at least understanding what issues researchers are looking into and what they've found. I think a good introduction is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics and in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#Politics_as_an_academic_discipline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#Politics_as_an_academi...
    - 12y ago

pron 12y ago

Causality here makes absolutely no difference. These aren't research programs -- these are programs designed to increase revenue or some other arbitrary composite variable. They're not interested in why the correlations are there, only whether they can be used to increase revenue. The problem here is one of agency. Even true causality in humans is subject to change -- these are not laws of nature here but snapshots of human society, which changes all the time through political action -- but computers inadvertently perpetuate the existing condition, because they have no agency or interest in pursuing change. Perhaps this should be programmed: we could program computers for, say, affirmative action so that changing the status quo is one of their goals. But whether we do or not, the important thing to understand here is that once computers make decisions that influence humans, they are carrying out some political agenda (even if that is maintaining the status quo), whether we consciously program them or not.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
If a program has affirmative action built in, it is indeed serving a political agenda. AA is a causal relation: if (race == black) score += 10. But if it merely programmed to show ads for "Think Like a Man Too" to people who watched "Think Like a Man" based on a rule about sequels, there is no agenda there beyond profit. In both cases they are disproportionately targeting black people, but in the latter case it's only a composition effect. If you run the sequel targeting program on a group of asians who enjoyed "Think Like a Man", you'll get the same outcome. If you run the AA program on a group of asians, you won't. AA is a causal relationship on race, whereas the sequel rule is not. From previous interactions with you, I gather that you want statistical equality rather than equal treatment. That's great, but many people only care about equality of treatment. The do-calculus (or similar tools) helps with the latter problem, not the former.
- pron 12y ago
  > But if it merely programmed to show ads for "Think Like a Man Too" to people who watched "Think Like a Man" based on a rule about sequels, there is no agenda there beyond profit. But that's not the dynamics. It's like, there's this whole universe out there with its own forces and dynamics, but you're saying -- nah, I don't care about that, I just care about the current snapshot. Suppose for a second that every school taught blacks to like that movie you referred to. You just created a (causal!!) proxy for race. So now if decisions pertaining to your future income are based on you having watched the movie, then all of a sudden they become pure of ideology? First, we create a proxy, then we discriminate based on the proxy, and finally we claim no political agenda because we're "only" discriminating on that proxy. > but in the latter case it's only a composition effect. Why does that make a difference? Why do you think targeting correlations is somehow less political than targeting race directly? Your direct intentions are not what matters here. What matters here is what future your actions serve. Any directed (i.e. non-noise) changes (or lack thereof) to human society caused by humans are politics[1]. > I gather that you want statistical equality rather than equal treatment Quite the opposite. If there's a society with built in mistreatment of certain races, then that mistreatment must first be addressed. You see equal treatment only because you don't try to learn how society works. Politics changes society all the time. What society looks like now is a result of yesterday's politics, and what it will look like tomorrow is a result of today's. You're simply suggesting implementing conservative politics that don't try to change society today. But there's absolutely no objective advantage to the current situation over a previous or a future one. That's what's known as the naturist, or is-ought, fallacy. What I find quite interesting is that as a a scientist, you take absolutely no interest in learning how things work and how we can change them. You want to hack computers but not society. How is that not a political agenda? P.S. I tried finding a good starting point to learning the topic (of politics), or at least understanding what issues researchers are looking into and what they've found. I think a good introduction is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics and in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#Politics_as_an_academic_discipline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#Politics_as_an_academi...
  - 12y ago