wut
Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning
51–60 of 201 posts
Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning
#52Earlier 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.
So (assuming males are more costly to insure) either (a) females pay more than they should and are effectively subsidizing males or (b) males pay less than they should and the insurance companies will go broke..
On the other hand, we didn't choose to have high levels of testosterone in our bodies.
Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning
#53Earlier 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.
So (assuming males are more costly to insure) either (a) females pay more than they should and are effectively subsidizing males or (b) males pay less than they should and the insurance companies will go broke..
Or (c) insurance companies still make positive returns on both male and female customers, and the regulation just reduces their overall profits without creating losses which must be subsidized by female customers.
Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning
#54Well. 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.
Is it just driving insurance or also other kinds (e.g. health insurance, where women might be paying more than men)?
Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning
#55Earlier 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.
So (assuming males are more costly to insure) either (a) females pay more than they should and are effectively subsidizing males or (b) males pay less than they should and the insurance companies will go broke..
It's OK because we subsidize their Health Care: men and women pay the same for the same age, but women use way more than men.
Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning
#56>[...] concept called equal opportunity. Here, the constraint is that of the people who can pay back a loan, the same fraction in each group should actually be granted a loan. This does not seem fair to me, because if this is applied then your race (group) would determine your credit score threshold which feels discriminatory to me. I feel that, by definition, it is not discriminatory only if none of your attributes…
Why should it not be fair? Under this constraint, the perfect equal opportunity model would be a model that accurately represents who will pay back a loan.
Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning
#57Earlier 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.
So (assuming males are more costly to insure) either (a) females pay more than they should and are effectively subsidizing males or (b) males pay less than they should and the insurance companies will go broke..
[deleted]
Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning
#58You realize you're advocating totalitarianism, right?
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.
No, no, he's advocating for a dreadful, sinister world where a bunch of high priests strip you of your freedom to decide how you conduct business...
How much "discrimination" will be good enough in the end? I'll tell you what the endgame is: no discrimination at all, everybody gets a loan. So, in other words, no loans at all because nobody would conduct business in those conditions.
Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
So (assuming males are more costly to insure) either (a) females pay more than they should and are effectively subsidizing males or (b) males pay less than they should and the insurance companies will go broke..
Or (c) insurance companies still make positive returns on both male and female customers, and the regulation just reduces their overall profits without creating losses which must be subsidized by female customers.
(d) Insurance companies increase insurance premiums for every customer not in the young male demographic, blames "regulation". Results skyrocket. Management awards themselves seven digit raises to "keep attracting the best talent".
Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning
#60This is how it should be: "Max Profit. The most profitable, since there are no constraints. But the two groups have different thresholds, meaning they are held to different standards." Here's the big fallacy: "the two groups have different thresholds, meaning they are held to different standards." They are not held to different standards because they're different groups, but because of other reasons that indicate dif…
Any SJW care to explain why I'm wrong instead of downvoting? thanks! this is a lot of fun :D