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

Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 251 posts

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#141

Post by ralston3 »

smnrchrds wrote: post #53
jrochkind1 wrote: post #15

> "[A]lgorithms are made by people and the results ... were reviewed multiple times by people," You got that right. The way they talk about "an algorithm did it" makes it seem as as if they think that somehow explains it, like there was only one algorithm possible handed down from god or something. We'll be seeing more and more of this of course. "We can't be blamed, it was an algorithm! We can't be blamed for trusti…

"Machine learning is like money laundering for bias" https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/744595961217835008

This is gold XD

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#142

Post by craz8 »

emcq wrote: post #102
craz8 wrote: post #99

Since this algorithm is obviously flawed this way, is it likely to be flawed with respect to the timing of the second dose? Every report I’ve seen from experiment subjects (who may have received the placebo) indicates that the second dose sucked for 2-3 days, and was much worse than the first. If you give all your, for example, ICU staff the second dose at the same time, and then they can’t work for 2 days, how do yo…

This is easy to resolve by staggering doses which I know at least other hospitals are doing.

It is, but are they actually planning to do this?

The key is that you need to stagger them now - maybe over a 10 day period to be safe (plan for 2 days off, so 20% out of action with 10 days, try to use “weekend” time for this)

But in the middle of a pandemic, even 20% is a lot of lost capacity

And then some people need to be in the day 8, 9 and 10 groups so won’t “get the vaccine first”

So it’s actually not quite as simple as just spreading them out over a few days and hope for the best.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#143

Post by Veen »

itronitron wrote: post #115
sfvisser wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think people necessarily love narratives that blame engineers. Why would they? Some specific people in positions of responsibility that screw up badly see blaming engineers/tech as an easy way out of their responsibilities. Similar outcome different thing.

I think it is similar to how certain people always feel they are being ripped off by their car mechanic. They were told one thing by marketing/sales and then reality turns out to be more nuanced.

Except that people are quite often ripped off by car mechanics. Whenever there is an information asymmetry some proportion of the individuals with more knowledge will take advantage of it. I know nothing about cars, so when a mechanic tells me my car needs a $1000 repair, I have to take them at their word or get a second opinion, which is usually more effort than I'm prepared to expend. That sort of imbalance is irresistible to some people in all walks of life, including auto-repair, sales, and engineering.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#144

Post by [deleted] »

bosswipe wrote: post #118
smnrchrds wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Machine learning is like money laundering for bias" https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/744595961217835008

There's no way they used machine learning here. My guess it was some simple rules like older doctors go first. I wouldn't even call it an algorithm. I think algorithm is a weasly way for the administrator to make it sound more complicated then it was.

[deleted]

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#145

Post by [deleted] »

XorNot wrote: post #116
rhino369 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That should definitely be a factor considered, especially in any area where a doctor shortage could occur. But a month sounds like a long time for <35 years olds in good health.

14 days is the quarantine period to show symptoms. It is not how long the infection takes to run its course if you actually have it, which is generally 3-4 weeks presuming things go well, which they much more frequently do not.

[deleted]

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#146

Post by mulmen »

bigyikes wrote: post #112
MereInterest wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to the other answers, machine learning based on biased datasets results in biased models. For example, Word2Vec can be used to make analogies. Having it determine "Man is to woman as king is to ___." results in "queen", which is reasonable. On the other hand, determining "Man is to computer programmer as woman is to ___." results in "homemaker". The algorithm wasn't deliberately designed to have sexist bias in…

How would you expect the computer programmer analogy be completed? I legitimately don’t know what a reasonable answer would be.

The takeaway is the model has bias. It’s up to humans to decide what to do with that information.

Depending on the input “homemaker” may be a technically reasonable output.

Should we use such a model to suggest career paths to high school students? Or should we reevaluate the methodology?

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#147

Post by fortran77 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #81
jrochkind1 wrote: post #15

> "[A]lgorithms are made by people and the results ... were reviewed multiple times by people," You got that right. The way they talk about "an algorithm did it" makes it seem as as if they think that somehow explains it, like there was only one algorithm possible handed down from god or something. We'll be seeing more and more of this of course. "We can't be blamed, it was an algorithm! We can't be blamed for trusti…

In general, blaming the algorithm is an indirect way of blaming software engineers. From Facebook to the VW emissions scandal to Stanford’s vaccine allocation, people love narratives that blame engineers. I suspect this trend will only get worse as the general public realizes that engineers are now a highly compensated professional, similar to how lawyers are the butt of so many jokes.

The "algorithm" was most likely a simple optimization model run on a spreadsheet.

Nobody's blaming software programmers (or "engineers")

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#148

Post by bonoboTP »

fragmede wrote: post #123
bosswipe wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way they used machine learning here. My guess it was some simple rules like older doctors go first. I wouldn't even call it an algorithm. I think algorithm is a weasly way for the administrator to make it sound more complicated then it was.

As computer scientists and adjacent, we have a whole taxonomy for algorithms. It should be noted that "sort by salary" is an algorithm.

In popular media "algorithm" has taken on a new meaning, probably because the word itself sounds mysterious.

I can't fully define the new meaning, but it's like the YouTube video recommendation algorithm which is more like a whole system than a single algorithm in the original sense, the Facebook algorithm for ranking items on your feed. These big data, machine learning, opaque models.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#149

Post by bosswipe »

fragmede wrote: post #123
bosswipe wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way they used machine learning here. My guess it was some simple rules like older doctors go first. I wouldn't even call it an algorithm. I think algorithm is a weasly way for the administrator to make it sound more complicated then it was.

As computer scientists and adjacent, we have a whole taxonomy for algorithms. It should be noted that "sort by salary" is an algorithm.

If the set of rules are defined by humans and then those rules are coded into a SQL statement is it really an algorithm? If the humans define the rules and later they realize the rules are bad it's not the sorting algorithm that caused the problem.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#150

Post by to11mtm »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #15

> "[A]lgorithms are made by people and the results ... were reviewed multiple times by people," You got that right. The way they talk about "an algorithm did it" makes it seem as as if they think that somehow explains it, like there was only one algorithm possible handed down from god or something. We'll be seeing more and more of this of course. "We can't be blamed, it was an algorithm! We can't be blamed for trusti…

Standing on the shoulders of Giants, I would like to suggest the term 'Distributed Bureaucracy' to reflect when an algorithm you didn't even know existed determines your allocation of resources.
Post reply on HN