- by kq4ym, Data Doctor
- 11/6/2017 7:26:20 AM
It is probably true that where there is hidden information that only certain parties have, there's not going to be a fair or level playing field. I many years ago read a book that advised to get ahead make sure you know something that no one else knows, and therefore can take advantage of that information. Do no harm? A good philosophy to work towards, but not so easy in a practical world sense bearing in mind that there are still those who don't believe in it.
- by rbaz, Data Doctor
- 10/30/2017 11:01:48 PM
rbaz, to be honest, I don't really believe the free market is ever really free. It only works when consumers have multiple choices and transparency of price and other qualifications. This rarely happens in the real world, either because of monopolistic practices, government favoritism, collusion or corruption, etc. The healthcare business is another great example. Good luck to consumers there too!
- by rbaz, Data Doctor
- 10/30/2017 5:21:33 PM
Broadway, you make a good point on free market choice and emphasize the need for options. Well I do live in a town that has one cable service. I have one option with one choice. Free market isn't exactly free.
- 10/29/2017 9:07:30 PM
PredictableChaos, true point. If someone doesn't have any option but submit to the algorithm, then they are as screwed as that felon about to be sentenced (or that wrongly convicted prisoner about to be sentenced). But as you illustrate yourself, the position is not so different than what people have found themselves in for hundreds, thousands of years. Heck, live somewhere where there's only one cable company?
- by PredictableChaos, Data Doctor
- 10/28/2017 10:38:14 AM
The free market is good for many things, but it may not help if you have no visibility into why the algorithm is providing an undesirable outcome for you.
And, like in the case of the prisoner receiving a sentence, sometimes you may have no alternatives.
- 10/28/2017 12:02:21 AM
Can't debate? What about the free market system? We can vote with out feet. Don't like the algorithm on a social media platform? Get off it? Don't like the algorithm that decides you didn't get a raise? Get a new employer?
- by Lyndon_Henry, Blogger
- 10/27/2017 10:14:33 PM
Kq4 writes that
... defining just what is "good" may be more tricky than most might imagine. Doing no harm might not be as easy as we'd like. But of course if there's existing regulations, we will have to follow those, under the assumption that someone else higher up has made the decision for us as to what is "good."
In her article, Emily Johnson writes:
At the Strata Big Data Conference in New York, one of the major themes was the responsibility that data scientists have to do their best to prevent the biases and prejudices that exist in society from creeping into data and the way algorithms are built.
When it comes to medicine, the first rule of ethics is, do no harm. When mathematician and data scientist, Cathy O'Neil, spoke during her keynote at Stata Big Data Conference in New York recently, she said the same first rule should apply when building algorithms.
"Algorithms and AI are not objective," she said. "They're opinions embedded in code." O'Neil's talk, which took the title from her book, Weapons of Math Destruction, was about how even with good intentions, data scientists can create toxic algorithms that end up doing harm instead of good.
"Do no harm"? There is a huge, and I mean enormous, chunk of the AI development industry that is striving to develop killer robots and other AI-based weapons of mass destruction. DARPA, anyone?
These weapons have gotta be packed with algorithms laser-focused on doing harm. And incorporating biases? How about the bias to seek and destroy whatever the programming developer perceives as undesirable, or worthy of destruction?
Surely this R&D is producing a mother lode of frighteningly harmful algorithms, based on a mother lode of biases.
- by kq4ym, Data Doctor
- 10/26/2017 8:56:01 AM
And defining just what is "good" may be more tricky than most might imagine. Doing no harm might not be as easy as we'd like. But of course if there's existing regulations, we will have to follow those, under the assumption that someone else higher up has made the decision for us as to what is "good."
- by SaneIT, Data Doctor
- 10/26/2017 8:55:57 AM
I would have a real problem with that algorithm, the US prides itself on valuing the individual. Yes an individual my have committed a crime but unless they were part of a mob committing a crime then I feel that only their actions should be considered during sentencing. Two people standing trial for the same crime can have committed the crime in very different ways. For instance writing a bad check for more than $300 can get you a grand theft charge. If you compare that to the theft of retirement accounts at Enron and the same charges leveled against players in that scheme. I wasn't aware that we had courts handing down sentences this way and to me it seems like that is against the very spirit of our justice system.