Sentenced by Algorithm
nybooks.com
Sentenced by Algorithm
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: Sentenced by Algorithm
#2Actually, the headline could be more technically correct written as "sentenced by algorithm executing on backdoored remotely controlled computer", as that is the case today.
Enjoy your dystopia of greed, fraud, and injustice.
Re: Sentenced by Algorithm
#3It seems the appropriate method to judge this approach is in comparison to the baseline referenced at the start: humans making “black box” judgement calls that are subject to the individual judge’s biases. If the computer programmed decision making were (already is?) transparent, then we could critique it and work to ensure something resembling fair is encoded.
Re: Sentenced by Algorithm
#4Actually, the headline could be more technically correct written as "sentenced by algorithm executing on backdoored remotely controlled computer", as that is the case today. Enjoy your dystopia of greed, fraud, and injustice.
[deleted]
Re: Sentenced by Algorithm
#5It seems the appropriate method to judge this approach is in comparison to the baseline referenced at the start: humans making “black box” judgement calls that are subject to the individual judge’s biases. If the computer programmed decision making were (already is?) transparent, then we could critique it and work to ensure something resembling fair is encoded.
How would you define 'fair'? I've a few examples, gathered from being alive and hearing what other people think for a few decades.
1. It's fair to punish someone else if you let another off the hook
2. It's fair to treat someone more harshly if you don't like what they've done
3. It's fair to turn the other cheek because they're a friend
4. It's fair to treat someone differently because of where they came from or their skin colour
5. It's fair to give someone a pass because they did you a favour
6. It's fair to be unfair because you owe someone a favour
7. It's unfair to be a victim who doesn't get justice
8. It's unfair to be an innocent person who is prosecuted for someone else's crime
9. It's unfair to not get what you wait
10. It's fair to get what you want
You will find a variation of all of these examples across the world right now.
The point is, fairness is loaded with bias and therefore any algorithm that tries to deal with 'fairness' is going to inherit the bias of those who designed it.
Re: Sentenced by Algorithm
#6It seems the appropriate method to judge this approach is in comparison to the baseline referenced at the start: humans making “black box” judgement calls that are subject to the individual judge’s biases. If the computer programmed decision making were (already is?) transparent, then we could critique it and work to ensure something resembling fair is encoded.
How would you define 'fair'? I've a few examples, gathered from being alive and hearing what other people think for a few decades. 1. It's fair to punish someone else if you let another off the hook 2. It's fair to treat someone more harshly if you don't like what they've done 3. It's fair to turn the other cheek because they're a friend 4. It's fair to treat someone differently because of where they came from or the…
You make really good points.
Life is bizarre and human culture is extremely contradictory and difficult to quantify.
And what's worse our definition of 'fair' maybe advancing just like culture is constantly advancing.
African Americans may have been treated poorly by the algorithm back in the 1700s when they we're considered less than a full person by the legal system for example. And maybe in the future drug offenses may be considered not a big deal.
They call the Constitution a living document.
This algorithm may have to be a living algorithm.
What if it was open source and constantly updated and reviewed to reach consensus?
There would probably also have to be human appeal processes.
I definitely think this is intriguing as a first-level sentencing determination though.
Re: Sentenced by Algorithm
#7Really thoughts for the topic remain as always: stop letting the people in power pass the buck to the algorithim. That is the entire purpose of those algorithms as implemented in the real world as opposed to some pie in the sky theorist - letting them escape responsibility.
I will also note that algorithimic sentencing existed before computers with sentencing guidelines.
Re: Sentenced by Algorithm
#8It seems the appropriate method to judge this approach is in comparison to the baseline referenced at the start: humans making “black box” judgement calls that are subject to the individual judge’s biases. If the computer programmed decision making were (already is?) transparent, then we could critique it and work to ensure something resembling fair is encoded.
"Computer programmed decision making" is anything but transparent currently. Just look at the example of Northpointe, Inc.'s COMPAS ("Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions") tool, which purports to measure recidivism risk. Even under threat of lawsuit, Northpointe refused to reveal the underlying source because it is a "protected trade secret."[1]
Are judges biased? Of course, and that is not acceptable. However, the answer is not to surrender our system of justice to unaccountable commercial actors.
1. https://www.uclalawreview.org/injustice-ex-machina-predictiv...
Re: Sentenced by Algorithm
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you define 'fair'? I've a few examples, gathered from being alive and hearing what other people think for a few decades. 1. It's fair to punish someone else if you let another off the hook 2. It's fair to treat someone more harshly if you don't like what they've done 3. It's fair to turn the other cheek because they're a friend 4. It's fair to treat someone differently because of where they came from or the…
You make really good points. Life is bizarre and human culture is extremely contradictory and difficult to quantify. And what's worse our definition of 'fair' maybe advancing just like culture is constantly advancing. African Americans may have been treated poorly by the algorithm back in the 1700s when they we're considered less than a full person by the legal system for example. And maybe in the future drug offense…
> African Americans may have been treated poorly by the algorithm back in the 1700s
Fucking hell, man.
Re: Sentenced by Algorithm
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make really good points. Life is bizarre and human culture is extremely contradictory and difficult to quantify. And what's worse our definition of 'fair' maybe advancing just like culture is constantly advancing. African Americans may have been treated poorly by the algorithm back in the 1700s when they we're considered less than a full person by the legal system for example. And maybe in the future drug offense…
> African Americans may have been treated poorly by the algorithm back in the 1700s Fucking hell , man.
?