Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

breakermag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 388 posts

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#211

Post by TeMPOraL »

diego898 wrote: post #151
TeMPOraL wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I haven't seen cults talking about how to personally ensure you're not falling into trap of cult-like thinking. LW is a rather self-conscious community.

Sorry for the tangent, but from the outside I've also felt very "outside" the LW community. I'm not exactly sure how to "join" it. I know that I'm supposed to read the various required readings first, but then what? How do I see what LW is "talking about" or "fighting about" at a point in time? I mean this in a serious, logistical sense. Thanks!

I'm out of the loop now, but it used to be like everywhere else (HN included) - you follow the posts and participate in comments, and after a while you suddenly find yourself to be an established community member.

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#212

Post by notacoward »

jpmcglone wrote: post #59

It’s more clear to me than ever now that the left and the right do not use the word “racist” the same way. The left thinks of racism in terms of outcome and the right thinks of racism in terms of intent. We could benefit from better language around these concepts, and honest dialogue about them too.

I think that implies a symmetry that doesn't exist. Vanishingly few people care about effects but not intent, because intent inevitably leads to effects. This creates a continuum, not a mirror image: consider neither, consider only intent, consider both. Those on the left mostly consider both, with a few considering only intent. Those on the right mostly consider only intent, with a few (racists by any definition) considering neither.

Your formulation also misses another very important nuance. I don't think most people on the right don't consider effects. They mostly know that such effects exist, and quite often feel bad about that. However, they also believe that addressing only intent (or "procedural fairness") is sufficient to make those effects go away, and that more assertive measures create "reverse discrimination" and/or infringe upon liberty. I'm not going to argue whether they're right or wrong, but it's not about consideration. "Strategy" might be closer to the mark. Most on the right (not counting the true racists) do want to end racism. They just reject the left/center prescription for doing so.

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#213

Post by malcolmgreaves »

tomp wrote: post #146
kauffj wrote: post #11

There is no design of AI that can be simultaneously utilitarian, procedurally fair, and representatively fair. I'm going to repeat this again, since many people struggle with this. It is _literally impossible_ to achieve the best utilitarian outcome, the most procedurally fair outcome, and a representatively fair outcome. Anyone designing algorithms will have to make tradeoffs along this frontier. For a far better ar…

More to the point, “procedural fairness” or “equality of opportunity” (if I understand it correctly) is directly opposed to “representative fairness” or “equality of outcome”. In many situations, prioritising one will compromise the other. As an example, Harvard admission of Asian students. Perspectives differ on which one is more important. Personally, I’m absolutely for the former, but it increasingly seems I’m a p…

In order to create a situation where people have equality of opportunity, it's often necessary to ensure that the individual had an equal outcome that creates the necessary starting state.

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#214

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dleslie wrote: post #97
dgzl wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We could benefit from better language around these concepts I believe this is a very under-rated problem today's public is facing. Not just these concepts, but many political terms are misused in today's climate, making for a conversationally ignorant population.

I feel like a writer once discussed the power that exists in limiting and controlling the language used in public discourse... /s

jpmcglone and dgzl were proposing the opposite of that. Newspeak eliminated words so that some ideas simply could not be expressed. They propose adding words so that dissimilar things can be distinguished from each other - to expand the things that can be (clearly) expressed.

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#215

Post by tunesmith »

BeetleB wrote: post #177
tunesmith wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If his studies basically equated liberal ideology with communism (equal outcomes), I think I'm a lot less inclined to read his book. You know, what I'd really like is for parties or candidates to identify what they think the appropriate GINI coefficient should be for the US.

You inspired me to update my post: >However, as a lot of pop psychology has taught us: People are fundamentally lazy in applying analytical thought, and will look for simple proxies. I would not recommend judging books based on a random Internet comment, even my one.

I wouldn't qualify myself as lazy for choosing not to read that book. :-) There are a lot of books out there!

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#216

Post by TomNem »

macspoofing wrote: post #150
akhilcacharya wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except..she's right...

About what? She is a far left progressive with a very shallow understanding of issues (she literally just learned what a marginal tax rate is). I understand you may share her political beliefs, shallow that they may be, but that doesn't make her 'right'.

Could you please provide some links to how she "just" learned what a marginal tax rate is or other examples of her shallow understanding of issues?

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#217

Post by swsieber »

sangnoir wrote: post #179
kauffj wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is. But if you're designing an algorithm that assesses credit risk and you do this, you will lose money compared to a company that does not do this.

The cost-to-benefit analysis of wheelchair ramps doesn't look great either (compared to not building one). Focusing on profit alone leads to some pretty terrible outcomes for people.

Taking credit when you can't pay it back doesn't just hurt the bank - it hurts you too.

Getting loaned money is not a right, and if you are irresponsible, it's harmful.

So if lending more to a certain segment of the population hurts the bank's profit, I'd also expect it to cause more problems for that population segment too.

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#218

Post by hoaw »

tomp wrote: post #146
kauffj wrote: post #11

There is no design of AI that can be simultaneously utilitarian, procedurally fair, and representatively fair. I'm going to repeat this again, since many people struggle with this. It is _literally impossible_ to achieve the best utilitarian outcome, the most procedurally fair outcome, and a representatively fair outcome. Anyone designing algorithms will have to make tradeoffs along this frontier. For a far better ar…

More to the point, “procedural fairness” or “equality of opportunity” (if I understand it correctly) is directly opposed to “representative fairness” or “equality of outcome”. In many situations, prioritising one will compromise the other. As an example, Harvard admission of Asian students. Perspectives differ on which one is more important. Personally, I’m absolutely for the former, but it increasingly seems I’m a p…

Contrary to what you read online, very few people should discuss those concepts in contrast with each other. Almost all of the public debate is contained in the former. Therefor being for the former doesn't really say much, at all, and any encyclopedia will tell you why.

Edit: I will make it easier for you. If you do not understand most of this page[0] you are ignorant of one of the most fundamental debates in society. If you do you would understand my position. The wikipedia version might do as well [1]. It is ironic how people who don't "believe in outcome" are often ignorant.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity#Theory

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#219

Post by mehrdadn »

tomp wrote: post #146
kauffj wrote: post #11

There is no design of AI that can be simultaneously utilitarian, procedurally fair, and representatively fair. I'm going to repeat this again, since many people struggle with this. It is _literally impossible_ to achieve the best utilitarian outcome, the most procedurally fair outcome, and a representatively fair outcome. Anyone designing algorithms will have to make tradeoffs along this frontier. For a far better ar…

More to the point, “procedural fairness” or “equality of opportunity” (if I understand it correctly) is directly opposed to “representative fairness” or “equality of outcome”. In many situations, prioritising one will compromise the other. As an example, Harvard admission of Asian students. Perspectives differ on which one is more important. Personally, I’m absolutely for the former, but it increasingly seems I’m a p…

Do you believe getting rid of accessible parking spots makes things more fair...?

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#220

Post by viraptor »

zenogais wrote: post #20

I think the strong counter-argument to this is in [1]. Quite simply we need to make sure we don't get fooled by randomness and see bias where there is none, thereby making good algorithms worse in an attempt to fix imaginary bias. [1]: https://jacobitemag.com/2017/08/29/a-i-bias-doesnt-mean-what...

I don't think it's that good counterargument. The explained problem was treated as simple mapping - this value causes that result. It spends a bit talking about what statistics mean, but unfortunately doesn't discuss the idea of confounding variables, which influence both sides of the equation.
Post reply on HN