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

Sentenced by Algorithm

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: Sentenced by Algorithm

#21

Post by ljm »

CyanBird wrote: post #16
ljm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> African Americans may have been treated poorly by the algorithm back in the 1700s Fucking hell , man.

I completely fail to see what's the issue with what OP said, care to explain? It is completely accurate, algorithms are built by people whom live inmersed on their own temporary and geographically atomized cultures, just look at modern supposed ""unbiased"" algorithms used to ""prevent crime"", it is just racial biases baked in

> African Americans may have been treated poorly by the algorithm back in the 1700s

Tell me about how your algorithm enslaved people.

Re: Sentenced by Algorithm

#22

Post by nickthemagicman »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #20
nickthemagicman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am super confused as well. Lol. This website is really strange.

I suspect the "may have" is what set people off.

Thanks for letting me know.

So strange.

The 'algorithm' is the noun object of the preposition.

Not society or history .

Is modern English education really that poor?

Or is there purposeful misinterpretation in order to be offended?

I just don't get it.

Re: Sentenced by Algorithm

#23

Post by arcticbull »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #20
nickthemagicman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am super confused as well. Lol. This website is really strange.

I suspect the "may have" is what set people off.

I see how the parents wording is confusing. IMO, they weren't saying African Americans "may have been treated poorly" in the past (I suspect this is quite uncontentious), they were saying that even this algorithm, now, applied back in the 1700s may not have eliminated bias. Instead, it may have simply applied the prevailing biases emotionlessly. It's hard to see the inequities of your system when you participate in it.

Re: Sentenced by Algorithm

#24

Post by pyuser583 »

geephroh wrote: post #8
onos wrote: post #3

It 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…

“Compas” was also the name of the test used by Wisconsin community colleges to assess students.

It was legally required that all community college students take it, even if they were only taking a single course.

It seemed like a really corrupt arrangement. Want to take a language class to complete a high school requirement? You have to pay $100 to a for profit company to assess your math skills.

Seems community colleges no longer use a test branded as “Compas”.

Edit: it was “Compass” and discontinued in 2015 over concerns of its accuracy.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/18/act-drops-pop...

Re: Sentenced by Algorithm

#25

Post by masswerk »

onos wrote: post #3

It 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.

I can actually see a use case in earmarking court decisions for review that are far off from what may have been expected.

Handing over the decision altogether, however, is like handing justice over to a theatrical magician ("The Great Fully Automated Barnum Court"): it's commercially incentivized, you may not know the trick, because it's a trade secret, and it's not the real thing, either. (But, exactly because of this, people will fall for it.) Also, judgement is very much about discerning correlation from causation, so correlation based data may not be the best foundation, to begin with.

Re: Sentenced by Algorithm

#26

Post by nickthemagicman »

ljm wrote: post #21
CyanBird wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely fail to see what's the issue with what OP said, care to explain? It is completely accurate, algorithms are built by people whom live inmersed on their own temporary and geographically atomized cultures, just look at modern supposed ""unbiased"" algorithms used to ""prevent crime"", it is just racial biases baked in

> African Americans may have been treated poorly by the algorithm back in the 1700s Tell me about how your algorithm enslaved people.

If you're asking if I took a time machine back to the 1700's to use an imaginary algorithm, to enslave people, I assure you good sir I did not.

This is indeed one of the potential problems with inventing an algorithm to sentance people, as I mentioned before, is that it would be written to match the biases of the time period.

Re: Sentenced by Algorithm

#27

Post by Gravyness »

evdkush wrote: post #11

So you're saying that computer algorithms are classifying based on correlations they've found in the data?

If the model starts having "racial bias" then the answer is to remove the "race" and "skin color" parameters and opensource it, not make propaganda against machine learning because it has biases. Of course it has biases, you know what else has biases? Humans, who will outright lie about their biases (such a feat machines have yet to do) to divert the attention for personal agendas.

Re: Sentenced by Algorithm

#28

Post by failuser »

swayvil wrote: post #13

Combine this with UBI and a monitoring collar (cellphone). Running a society becomes ridiculously easy. Simcity. It might not be a free society per se, but it might be a very happy one. (I'm getting that friendly "you are posting too much, wait an unspecified period of time before we'll allow you to post again." thing. It discourages trolls but it also enforces mediocrity and conformity. Just saying.)

Happy? People sentenced by a judge or jury have a hope of appeal. People sentenced by Google don’t have any hope.

Re: Sentenced by Algorithm

#29

Post by swayvil »

failuser wrote: post #28
swayvil wrote: post #13

Combine this with UBI and a monitoring collar (cellphone). Running a society becomes ridiculously easy. Simcity. It might not be a free society per se, but it might be a very happy one. (I'm getting that friendly "you are posting too much, wait an unspecified period of time before we'll allow you to post again." thing. It discourages trolls but it also enforces mediocrity and conformity. Just saying.)

Happy? People sentenced by a judge or jury have a hope of appeal. People sentenced by Google don’t have any hope.

Yeah, but we would have a lot more free time. Life would be simpler.

And as long as you keep your behavior within the statistical sweet-zone the justicebots will leave you alone. (Much like social media, actually)

Re: Sentenced by Algorithm

#30

Post by jeffypoo »

ljm wrote: post #9
nickthemagicman wrote: post #6

Earlier 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.

Your outrage radar is a little too sensitive pal.
Post reply on HN