How Algorithms May Affect You (phys.org)

New submitter Muckluck shares an excerpt from a report via Phys.Org that provides "an interesting look at how algorithms may be shaping your life": When you browse online for a new pair of shoes, pick a movie to stream on Netflix or apply for a car loan, an algorithm likely has its word to say on the outcome. The complex mathematical formulas are playing a growing role in all walks of life: from detecting skin cancers to suggesting new Facebook friends, deciding who gets a job, how police resources are deployed, who gets insurance at what cost, or who is on a "no fly" list. Algorithms are being used -- experimentally -- to write news articles from raw data, while Donald Trump's presidential campaign was helped by behavioral marketers who used an algorithm to locate the highest concentrations of "persuadable voters." But while such automated tools can inject a measure of objectivity into erstwhile subjective decisions, fears are rising over the lack of transparency algorithms can entail, with pressure growing to apply standards of ethics or "accountability." Data scientist Cathy O'Neil cautions about "blindly trusting" formulas to determine a fair outcome. "Algorithms are not inherently fair, because the person who builds the model defines success," she said. Phys.Org cites O'Neil's 2016 book, "Weapons of Math Destruction," which provides some "troubling examples in the United States" of "nefarious" algorithms. "Her findings were echoed in a White House report last year warning that algorithmic systems 'are not infallible -- they rely on the imperfect inputs, logic, probability, and people who design them,'" reports Phys.Org. "The report noted that data systems can ideally help weed out human bias but warned against algorithms 'systematically disadvantaging certain groups.'"

Comments

Here's what you do

[Waffle Iron]

In my day, we had a simple and effective way to judge algorithms:

O(n log(n)) or faster: good
O(n^2) or slower: bad

In other news... Integers: Why so many?

[mbeckman]

Is this what passes for intelligent discourse at Phys.org? So many errors, so little time. First, an algorithm is NOT involved when I pick a movie to stream on Netflix. I pick the movie, Netflix streams it. Unless you want to count the code necessary to display a web page and process a click. Second, algorithms are NOT "complex mathematical formulas." A formula is a specification for a single computational step (or a series of similar steps, in the case of calculus). An algorithm is a non-mathematical procedure, with memory, decision making, input and output from and to various sources and sinks, and, well, formulas. Algorithms contain formulas, but formulas don't contain algorithms. And phys.org does not contain the sense God gave raisins.

Agent Smith

[Zobeid]

"Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this, the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you, it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about."

Re:Algorithms or what?

[Sique]

No, the author makes the point that algorithms don't exculpate anyone from making bad decision. "The computer said: No." is no excuse for mishandling someone. We had the example on Slashdot of the algorithm that tries to predict recidivism and thus recommend probation or prison. A deeper analysis showed that it was biased against black people because it predicted higher recidivism for them than they had in reality, and it was biased pro whites as it predicted lower recidivism rates than real. And it was not even factoring in the skin color of the people in question. But the way it weighed the socio-economic factors seems to be the problem. It was scoring high on recidivism when many socio-economic risk factors were slightly up, but gave low scores when only one or two risk factors were high, but all others were low. Thus it was overestimating the recidivism rates of poor people with a weak family background, but completely missing the recidivism risk of well off people from a stable family, but deep personal problems.

But because the program was actually used in judiary decisions in several States, it unnecessarily sent people to prison, while it recommended to set high risk people free on probation, and it did it with a strong racial bias that was contradicted by reality.