Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning • Hacker News Board

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#111

Post by striking » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #78

weberc2 wrote: post #66

I agree that this should be a possibility, while I think the odds that millions of law enforcement officers and criminal justice faculty would spontaneously conspire against a particular race, I also think it's more likely than some genetic predisposition toward crime (i.e., the first option).

Now, this is his first offence, but a young man is found high on PCB walking down the street hitting cars with a baseball bat. It takes five cops and a significant struggle to arrest him. Having read that, what would you assume is race and economic background is? After criminal proceedings he was sentenced to community service. Now, what would you assume is race and economic background is? PS: Bias is insidious and r…

I'd assume he's a poor white man, from the very beginning.

White, because most people in the US are white.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#112

Post by striking » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

wehere wrote: post #105

tjic wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't say "we". Not everyone shares your politics. I'm perfectly happy with algorithms detecting that certain people are more likely to be safe drivers than average, and giving them lower rates, and concentrating premiums on the groups more likely to be in accidents, even if I don't understand why Armenians (in your example) get in more crashes.

you mean you're perfectly happy because you're a straight white male?

Young males actually have higher car insurance premiums than older people or young females, because of risk considerations, just as an example.

And I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with any of this.

Nice bait, I guess?

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#113

Post by chronic6l » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

Blacks (or African Americans) are less intelligent than other ethnicities, in average. We have information that satisfies your two criteria of supporting class information. Yet people on HN (liberals/progressives) will get upset with this fact.

Supporting classes:

1. Through employment, high school graduation, incarceration, and homicide rates.

2. Due to black cultural, male macho-independence, discrimination from non-blacks, and poor family values.

We have evidence for this, not from machine learning, but from human observation. Yet we're not allowed to use these statistically significant generalizations?

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#114

Post by chronic6l » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

striking wrote: post #112

wehere wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you mean you're perfectly happy because you're a straight white male?

Young males actually have higher car insurance premiums than older people or young females, because of risk considerations, just as an example. And I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with any of this. Nice bait, I guess?

The baiter just got burned.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#115

Post by jtbigwoo » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 5:03 PM UTC

theBobBob wrote: post #23

mvindahl wrote: post #22

Well. At the end of the day, the companies will pick thresholds and rates to maximize their profits, based upon the data that they have available. They don't know every detail of our personal lives -- which would also be kind of unsettling -- so they have to resort to a simplified picture. Simplifications are always prejudiced at the individual level but if the prejudice is reflected in the numbers, it's balanced. It…

Interestingly the EU has banned insurance underwriting based on gender even with all the actuarial data backing it up. Age is still fair game though.

Since the 80's, the state of Montana has banned insurance underwriting based on gender. There have been attempts to reverse that law, but none have passed.

My male Montana cousins always had slightly cheaper insurance than I did, but my female Montana cousins more than made up for it.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#116

Post by tptacek » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

hajile wrote: post #102

mvindahl wrote: post #22

Well. At the end of the day, the companies will pick thresholds and rates to maximize their profits, based upon the data that they have available. They don't know every detail of our personal lives -- which would also be kind of unsettling -- so they have to resort to a simplified picture. Simplifications are always prejudiced at the individual level but if the prejudice is reflected in the numbers, it's balanced. It…

Women's healthcare costs several times more than mens over their lifetime (and that's before factoring in pregnancy). Countries are just fine "equalizing" that even though that means that men pay way more for their health insurance than they should have to. How many people complain about this happening? Collectivism is just fine when you are the one on the receiving end. Either we set absolute lines of discrimination…

Generally we're most of us in society pretty comfortable with paying for the continuation of the species. There are exceptions to every rule, of course; some of us (not including me) are unhappy we pay to pave the streets, too.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#117

Post by jtbigwoo » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 5:05 PM UTC

angry-hacker wrote: post #48

theBobBob wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly the EU has banned insurance underwriting based on gender even with all the actuarial data backing it up. Age is still fair game though.

Which made the insurance for women, who are traditionally safer drivers because not taking unless risks, go up. Well facts can't be racist but they are at the same time.

Auto and life insurance are usually more expensive for men, but health insurance is usually more expensive for women. It would be interesting to see who comes out ahead overall.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#118

Post by tptacek » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

ihsw wrote: post #76

tptacek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think he's more advocating for a world where we don't encode the literal status quo into computer models that make decisions for us going forward, which is something that nobody of any political stripe is likely to want.

What's wrong with encoding the status quo? Why do we have to encode progressive extremism into computer models? Being progressive for the sake of "going forward" sounds like misguided idealism. What do we do when progressive computer models lead us down a harmful path, do we simply play the typical liberal blame game and point fingers everywhere else while digging our head into sand?

I'm not sure you're following my point. Conservatives should be no happier than liberals about the prospect of a deeply imperfect status quo being baked into future decisionmaking, because there's much about the status quo conservatives don't like either.

This isn't even remotely far-fetched. If you're a rural working class person, it's not at all hard to see how machine learning algorithms could adversely affect decisions about your insurance rates, loan acceptances, sentencing, the frequency with which your homes and businesses are inspected, and so on.

The idea that "discrimination" is somehow a progressive bugbear is --- well, I don't know how better to say this --- deeply stupid. Swirling eyes-within-eyes sticking out from blobs of fur inverted machine learning stupid.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#119

Post by chronic6l » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 5:07 PM UTC

FT_intern wrote: post #85

tomp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's useful to figure out why there are discrepancies between two groups. For example, let's take blacks in the US. The data tells you that a black person is more likely to be a criminal than a white person. There are two possible reasons for this: (1) blacks are more prone to crime, or (2) blacks are more likely to live in circumstances that make them criminals. With access to only anecdotal data, I strongly…

(2) is not completely true because some impoverished communities are more prone to commit crimes than others. Biologically, (1) is not true. Culturally, it may be true. Impoverished black people idolize and preach a culture that encourages crimes and the precursors that make criminal actions more likely.

Say what you want about biological plausibility. But in other cultures/countries around the world, Blacks consistently underperform (any metric you like: marriage success, salary, mortality rate, graduation, etc.) compared to other ethnic groups. What will convince you it is in fact a biological difference?

Despite what the American declaration of independence says (whether you are American or not), no, not all people were born or created equally. Additionally, of the ones born equally, they do not have equal rights or opportunities to pursue of happiness.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#120

Post by tptacek » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

chronic6l wrote: post #113

Blacks (or African Americans) are less intelligent than other ethnicities, in average. We have information that satisfies your two criteria of supporting class information. Yet people on HN (liberals/progressives) will get upset with this fact. Supporting classes: 1. Through employment, high school graduation, incarceration, and homicide rates. 2. Due to black cultural, male macho-independence, discrimination from no…

"Blacks" are not "less intelligent" than "other ethnicities". Please race troll somewhere else.