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'
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'.
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.
So, facts....if inconvenient....are not to be used or trusted?
Hmm...isn't that kinda deleting the purpose?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Right.
Because apparently, in 2017, math became racist.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
A very good book that discusses the problems behind the blind implementation of algorithms is Weapons of Math Destruction by Cathy O’Neil.
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.
That shouldn't really matter. If they are looking for educated people and more blue people are educated than green then the organization shouldn't have to worry about hiring less qualified people based on political correctness.
Almost comically, these types of things also come from absolute hypocrites.
If I say "Green people are less educated." I'm attacked for propagating a stereotype, yet the same people levying those attacks will say "You can't hire based on education because green people can't compete.".
The stereotypes are both shunned and joyously embraced depending on whether one feels it'll help or hurt in the current scenario.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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."
It may be true that people of whatever race are statistically more likely to be involved in crime, but it's not OK to deny an individual a loan on that basis, for instance.
Where does that stop though? Statistically men die earlier than women; is it wrong to charge men more for life insurance? Statistically women cost the medical system more than men; is it wrong to charge women more for health insurance? Statistically men are more likely to be involved in a traffic accident; is it wrong to charge men more for car insurance?
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.........
But, if you're going for purely predictive results....what part does "causation" play in this at all?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Not an easy question, and I'm hardly an expert on legal or ethical matters. But it seems to me that it's unfair to discriminate on traits where there is only an indirect correlation with undesirable outcomes. If men die earlier than women because of physiological traits, then perhaps it's ok to charge them more for life insurance (though insurers and goverments might not do or allow that for other reasons). But what if black people die earlier? Statistically speaking that's probably the case, but there is no direct correlation between being black and dying earlier; a white guy in the same situation probably faces the same odds. Certain groups are generaly poorer and more likely to eat bad foods as a result, more likely to be in gangs, etc... but that has little to do with race and more with their average economic position. So charge them more for life insurance if they are actually in a gang, or eat crappy food, in other words for the stuff that has a direct impact on their life expectancy, but not for skin color.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...