11–20 of 251 posts
This is absurd to complain about. Lots of other people should be higher priority.
Edit: I’m not surprised at the downvotes, but I’m just laughing. It’s like everybody’s brain has turned to mush! How on earth do you expect them to prioritize these vaccines if not based on age and other risk factors?
Stanford is not the only hospital system to restrict access to the vaccine from frontline residents. I can name 3 other local hospital systems in my city that have vaccinated administrative & C-suite/VP level staff before doctors, nurses, and other frontline employees. If vaccine allocation is getting messed up this early on within these closed systems, I can't help but think the next 2-3 phases will go awry as well--what checks are in place to ensure these vaccines get distributed to grocery store workers before people who are willing to pay more to get it early?
The great thing about an algorithm is that when it gives you results that benefit you, you can accept them and then pass the buck on to it when people get outraged: "According to an email sent by a chief resident to other residents, Stanford's leaders explained that an algorithm was used to assign its first allotment of the vaccine. The algorithm was said to have prioritized those health care workers at highest risk…
The great thing about an algorithm is that when it gives you results that benefit you, you can accept them and then pass the buck on to it when people get outraged: "According to an email sent by a chief resident to other residents, Stanford's leaders explained that an algorithm was used to assign its first allotment of the vaccine. The algorithm was said to have prioritized those health care workers at highest risk…
An algorithm is clearly a virtual scapegoat. They’ll need to interview those who were involved in coding it. Dig deeper to find out why.
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 trusting in the algorithm, because everyone knows algorithms are objective, right?"
I'm not sure "laypeople" realize that, especially in this particular case, "algorithm" is just a fancy word for "formula". Right, you MADE the formula, and it was wrong.
The great thing about an algorithm is that when it gives you results that benefit you, you can accept them and then pass the buck on to it when people get outraged: "According to an email sent by a chief resident to other residents, Stanford's leaders explained that an algorithm was used to assign its first allotment of the vaccine. The algorithm was said to have prioritized those health care workers at highest risk…
The great thing about an algorithm is that when it gives you results that benefit you, you can accept them and then pass the buck on to it when people get outraged: "According to an email sent by a chief resident to other residents, Stanford's leaders explained that an algorithm was used to assign its first allotment of the vaccine. The algorithm was said to have prioritized those health care workers at highest risk…
The whole mess has demonstrated why ethical AI research is important. It's so easy for people to disregard why and how biases exist in their systems when it doesn't affect them personally.
So, basically, whoever coded up the algorithm for personal COVID-risk forgot to take care of null-states for the location input.
So much for all the outrage over selfish intent.
Sure, it's possible that the admins purposefully created this glitch so as to have a reasonable fallback story in the case they got caught, but per Occam's Razor, I think it's much more likely it was a dumb, honest mistake.
The great thing about an algorithm is that when it gives you results that benefit you, you can accept them and then pass the buck on to it when people get outraged: "According to an email sent by a chief resident to other residents, Stanford's leaders explained that an algorithm was used to assign its first allotment of the vaccine. The algorithm was said to have prioritized those health care workers at highest risk…
The whole mess has demonstrated why ethical AI research is important. It's so easy for people to disregard why and how biases exist in their systems when it doesn't affect them personally.
The great thing about an algorithm is that when it gives you results that benefit you, you can accept them and then pass the buck on to it when people get outraged: "According to an email sent by a chief resident to other residents, Stanford's leaders explained that an algorithm was used to assign its first allotment of the vaccine. The algorithm was said to have prioritized those health care workers at highest risk…
Are you saying that the algorithm shouldn’t consider age and other risk factors? What in the world do you want them to do, give it to babies because they are cute?