Slashdot Mirror
We Hold People With Power To Account. Why Not Algorithms? (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: All around us, algorithms provide a kind of convenient source of authority: an easy way to delegate responsibility, a short cut we take without thinking. Who is really going to click through to the second page of Google results every time and think critically about the information that has been served up? Or go to every airline to check if a comparison site is listing the cheapest deals? Or get out a ruler and a road map to confirm that their GPS is offering the shortest route? But already in our hospitals, our schools, our shops, our courtrooms and our police stations, artificial intelligence is silently working behind the scenes, feeding on our data and making decisions on our behalf. Sure, this technology has the capacity for enormous social good -- it can help us diagnose breast cancer, catch serial killers, avoid plane crashes and, as the health secretary, Matt Hancock, has proposed, potentially save lives using NHS data and genomics. Unless we know when to trust our own instincts over the output of a piece of software, however, it also brings the potential for disruption, injustice and unfairness.
If we permit flawed machines to make life-changing decisions on our behalf -- by allowing them to pinpoint a murder suspect, to diagnose a condition or take over the wheel of a car -- we have to think carefully about what happens when things go wrong.
If we permit flawed machines to make life-changing decisions on our behalf -- by allowing them to pinpoint a murder suspect, to diagnose a condition or take over the wheel of a car -- we have to think carefully about what happens when things go wrong.
If a prosecutor or judge uses an algorithm to set sentencing or determine parole, the individual prosecutor or judge should still be held accountable if he was in error.
This applies if the algorithm is a "paper and pencil" fill-out-a-worksheet algorithm or if it's a complex computational algorithm that the judge or prosecutor can't understand. In the latter case, if the judge or prosecutor can't understand the tools he is using, perhaps he should use less sophisticated tools that he does understand.
Seriously, the "powerful" have not been help accountable for fuck-all in the US since after the 50's.
Maybe you should rather start with that before you starting picking on maths.
That's news to me
This is an editorial.
Yes I have a folder I keep all the naughty algorithms in. If they escape I erase their stacks. Real death
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
A person designed those algorithms.
Trump?
The software in life critical and safety systems indeed is already held to account. Conviction for a crime requires humans who review evidence and its veracity. Privacy depends on your lawmakers, some countries have a mindset of respecting it, others don't and wont' throwing the buzzword "AI" into a sentence doesn't change the problem that it's about software in general, whether or not a marketer slaps "AI" label on it
It's called a "proof".
Seriously, this is first year computer science stuff.
We don't generically "hold people with power to account". The law requires that legally competent adults comply with legally binding agreements they have entered (employment contracts, etc.), and the law punishes criminal behavior. Legal competency requires free will and agency, neither of which "algorithms" possess.
The ABS braking algoritihm in your car makes "life-changing decisions" you your behalf. It is you (the car's owner) and the manufacturer who are responsible for those decisions, depending on circumstances.
On the other hand, doctors make life changing decisions all the time, frequently get it wrong, and frequently are not held accountable. Nor should they be: when you make life changing decisions with limited information, you often get it wrong. That's not a flaw, that's life.
Since when? They get away scott free every single time.
People with power and authority are always held accountible for their misuse of both power and authority.
The only difference between them and everyone else is what happens when they're accountable for something bad.
Algorithms are neutral. Adding bias is adding bias and prejudice.
In the OP's posted story, Robert was the dumb fuck that almost drove off a cliff.
You cannot hold algorithms accountable, they're NOT PEOPLE. They cannot be punished. They don't feel remorse.
All we can do is to explicitly build a legislative system that follows the trail back to the human that gave the algorithm that power.
If Bob is driving a car, it's STILL Bob's responsibility to watch to damned road.
If Bob is sold a self-driving car with the written assurance from the dealer that this car will drive itself in conditions a, b, and c, if Bob gets killed during a, b, or c, ultimately the dealer is liable at LEAST for manslaughter, worse if they knew it wasn't perfected.
If the dealer was assured by the manufacturer, then the manufacturer is responsible. I would even say all the way to personal liability the person or group of persons who signed-off that this *was* capable.
Don't like that risk, Mr Auto Executive? Then don't sign off that X is safe until you're willing to take that risk.
(And I don't know if I'm just excessively cynical, but I don't see a lot of "holding people with power" to account EITHER. Hell, I don't see that holding ANY people to account - even for the logical consequences of their OWN CHOICES - is much of a priority in our society.)
-Styopa
Do you seriously think Google is not analyzing a million ways how useful the pages of results are after the first?
For price comparison sites, there are LOTS of consumer blogs comparing them down to the penny against every conceivable way of purchasing the flight/service/good. The service itself is very likely doing some checking also but there is a LOT of independent external validation happening...
The same is true for anything actually IMPORTANT. The algorithms that slide by without much analysis are only the ones that are not feed us very impactful data.
It's crazy to think that flaws in output will not be noticed and these days that will happen way sooner rather than later exactly because it's so easy for almost anyone to double-check results if they care.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Both mankind and all his creations including algorithms are fallible. All incur a risk of a bad outcome. However the traditional methods to mitigate risk do work. Things like multiple sources (various weather models), insurance, testing, etc. Most people probably trust the output of computers more than is warranted but then many people believe Fox news and Trump.
If your algorithms have been used in any way to marginalise a blue-haired tranny, it's off to the gallows with you.
We rarely hold people with power accountable. Instead, decisions are made in committee and by a series of processes that obfuscate and remove culpability of decisions from those that are authorizing it.
Lets say to do Action A, it requires approval by several committees or individuals. We'll keep it simple.
Committee 1 votes to do Action A (sounds like a good idea)
Person 1 checks to see if Action A(b) violates some metric (it doesn't)
Person 2 checks to see if Action A(c) passes certain functional tests. (it does)
Person 3 verifies results of tests A(b) and A(c) (it does)
Committee 2 finalizes approval of Action A
Action A causes massive death due to Action A doing something nobody checked for. There is no person responsible for this, it was just a bad "accident". However, looking back, Action A was a bad idea from the start, but it passed all the tests. Nobody is responsible.
Hillary can say with clear conscience that her signature on Uranium One deal was only one of 17 required, it isn't her fault. Even though the sale of Uranium to the Russians was stupid idea, no one person can be blamed. No accountability. The buck stops in committee.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Be powerful enough and you can commit almost any crime and get away with it. Second, you cannot hold an abstract concept accountable.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
When was the last bankster to go to prison?
Since a human or humans create the algorithms, I have to assume they could be flawed. Considering then if the algorithm stays flawed the results will continue to be flawed as well.
Algorithms are used in navigation solutions, PID loops are robotics and manipulation of the real world by software because those feedback rules are just combinations of math and dirt simple physics. Part of just a few feedback or other previous state locked loops. 99.99% of all human automation works perfectly for years by limits or corrective feedback.
Medicine outside just a few drugs and trauma treatments cannot enter the mid 90% in treatment success. The 10% shortfall is amazing in trend finding in medicine, sports betting and long-term trading and would be a liability in algorithms that could be held to a legal standard for such things as weight and balance limiters in tower cranes. Considering the two problems sets in the same class of algo is insane.
Modern medicine is statistics feedback and fails at when the best of intentions run headlong into "lies, damned lies, and statistics" because the underlying process and thousands of biological feedback loops that are not well understood in the way we understand the forces of torque and gravity on the the 10,000 parts of a tower crane.
... of that is not true.
We have a racist, self-admitted pussy-grabbing right wing batshit crazy evangelical Christian intolerant ass hat at the pinnacle of power and he's Teflon coated.
So, start over.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
People can change their minds (not that they DO) ...
Not so, algorithms.
#NoThoughtWithoutAThinker
"If we permit flawed machines to make life-changing decisions on our behalf -- by allowing them to pinpoint a murder suspect."
Why not punish laws as well if they condemn life-changing stuff like abortion, homosexuality, wrong bathroom use ...
After all they are algorithms too.
If we permit flawed machines to make life-changing decisions on our behalf ...
I don't think you understand how things work.
You say that we *already* hold people to account; who do you think writes the algorithms? Now go away "Dr." Hannah Fry (the report author).
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
when there are till people/companies responsible for implementing/coding/teaching the algorithm?
Algorithms don't just magically appear out of thin air.
It's like blaming a jackhammer when a contractor uses it instead of a nail-gun to install shingles.
I can't comment on all of these, but as to who is going to verify the algorithm for finding the shortest route works? I'm quite sure that has been thoroughly vetted.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
A person designed those algorithms.
More and more, algorithms are designing or at least re-designing algorithms.
In some systems, we are so far removed from "the person" that no one person could possibly understand the system in any reasonable period of time. By the time he did understand the system, the system would have very likely been decommissioned as obsolete or it would have re-trained itself and no longer be what it once was.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
We _do not_ hold people with power to account. So this is a nonsense question.
cultureal marxists overrun Slashdot.Org now! unacceptable, i'm never coming back and i will tell all my smart and powerful friends to do same.
Relax Francis. I was talking to GP and other /. regulars who act like software always trumps common sense especially when it comes to Google.
We should just treat algorithms as what they are, a tool. So if an algorithm fails, then the liability / accountability should flow as it would any other tool. Did the developers build a flawed algorithm? Then they should be liable for the damage caused. Did the hospital, agency, etc. incorrectly deploy or use the tool? Then they hold responsibility. Does the developer not know why the tool failed? Well that's your problem, and you're still responsible for it.
People often look to the algorithms of things like a GPS navigator or a news aggregator with the notion that it's always going to spit back results which are somehow "better" than whatever a human could have come up with... and to a certain extent, that might even be true. The thing that we don't always bother to ask is, what specifically did the human programmers of that algorithm decide to define as "better"? In some cases, it's a matter of what's least expensive, because that's what the consumer/end-user wants. In other cases, it's a matter of what's most profitable, because that's what the "real" customer wants. And in a few cases, "better" could easily be nothing more than taking that whole damned decision making process out of the end-user's hands, just so that they don't have to think about it.
Take GPS as an obvious potential example of this latter scenario: In many cases, there are a myriad of different possible routes which will all get you to the same destination in roughly the same time-frame -- barring obvious slowdowns, like a major accident on one of those routes. If you happen to know several such routes yourself, try testing your GPS: go "off route," and see what happens. I've conducted this test myself a few times, in one instance even going off route multiple times over the course of a drive... and the GPS happily rerouted and recalculated the estimate time of arrival each and every time... and outside of taking an obviously ridiculous route, the GPS's ETA only rarely extends beyond a few minutes different from the very first ETA that it had offered me, at the beginning of my trip. And yes... now and then, I can even manage to beat the GPS's estimate. (Your mileage may vary, and all that good stuff.)
So it's not always about getting the algorithm to help you find "the best" option... sometimes it's just about making a decision, and running with it. The same paradigm could easily be applied to many other decisions that we make in life. It hasn't been pushed quite this far yet, but consider: "Should I wear my blue shirt with tan slacks today, or the red shirt with black slacks?" "Should I have Moe's for lunch, or Chick-fil-a?" "Should I wear Old Spice or Ax, today?" "Boxers or briefs?" "Straight tie or bow tie?" Ohhhhhhh, the decisions!
Now, these are of course pretty far outside of the norm... most of us can usually come up with our own answers to these common everyday decisions. But that's just a few minor examples of the direction that things could go, once the machine has been supplied with enough of the right (?!?) data. And mark my words: if you can find a decent way to make the machine do it, there will be an audience willing to pass off even these minor decisions to the "wisdom of the machine."
And why not? After all, making decisions is, in-and-of-itself, just one more piece of stress in our lives. And who needs unnecessary stress... right?
As an example in the 2008 market crash we knew exactly who was responsible. There was no talk whatsoever of who was or wasn't at fault. The entire thing was played off as a hostage situation where the people who caused the crash had to be propped up or they'd take the entire economy with them. Since we couldn't just have the gov't let them fail and step in to prop the economy itself up (that'd be socialism, which is bad m'kay) we bailed them out with no penalties.
We know who the 1% are too. We know exactly who's making these decisions. We're actively choose not to punish them or remove them from power. As far as I can tell we're doing that because we're afraid that if we take the power away from them someone else is just going to get it to abuse.
Seems to me better solutions exist (mandatory voting & algorithmic based voter districts to prevent voter suppression plus a parliamentary system to replace the anti-democratic Senate & Electoral college) but folks don't like that either. So we're kind of stuck where we're at, with our current ruling class and a slow, steady slide back to serfdom...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Software is gradually replacing human knowledge - eg a driver with GPS has a measurably smaller area of the brain than a map-reader. This is even more true in business, where a person is more likely to be a 'computer operator' than actually have a grasp of the fundamental principles. Is there any point knowing something deeply when a two minute Google will yield the same answer?!
Sorry, but this is a sticking point for me. Every place I've ever been hired is at will. Lately I've been hired as a contract-to-hire so the company didn't have to pay unemployment if they didn't want to keep me. My bro just changed jobs and he's taking a huge risk in a desperate bid to get a promotion before he's too old to work anymore. As an employee you have zero rights and tons of obligations. This is why we had Unions.
To be fair this is an American perspective. I understand things are better in Europe and Australia.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and we see how well it works that the individuals behind them are held accountable.
Do you mean shrieking at them on Twitter?
Because nobody pays attention to that.
Most powerful people don't even manage their own social media, they have a PR firm do it for them.
Are you from lala-land?
If a prosecutor or judge uses an algorithm to set sentencing or determine parole, the individual prosecutor or judge should still be held accountable if he was in error.
If the algorithm that the law requires them to use gives an inappropriate result then it is not the judge or prosecutor who is to blame but those who passed the law requiring that they use the algorithm. This is the same for all algorithms: someone, somewhere has made a decision to use the algorithm and that decision makes that person accountable.
Even for more complex system which may design or adapt their own algorithms someone, somewhere has decided to put them in charge of something and that's where the accountability lies.
the only time in human history when people in power are held to account is when they were lynched by a mob.
Wow did you think you had a novel idea. Lusten to this amd tell me how it sounds. "My computer didn't do what I thought it should well better put it in jail for a year."
The word for the concept you are trying to grasp is called a "bug". Have you ever filed a bug report for a software error? How about heard of bug bounties? How about lawsuits for bugs that cost companies millions of dollars? Galixy S7? Every day companies spend billions on development teams just to fix bugs in software. So what accountability are you looking for that is not already in place? I mean seriously watch the news, this happens almost daily. Ever since the issue with the Therac-25.
Seriously, if you don't know anything about the field then maybe you should hold off on posting as an authority. Just because you don't understand it, does not mean it does not exist.
People in power are .. well in power. The very definition of non accountability. In a sick way, it has to be otherwise they would never make any decisions. There's a reason why POTUS cannot be tried, after they term is completed, for actions taken during office -- they would never make any decisions.
However the humans who certify them, and authorize their use and scope, do.
Twinstiq, game news
Silly me, I do all of those things.
All around us, algorithms provide a kind of convenient source of authority: an easy way to delegate responsibility, a short cut we take without thinking.
How often does some business or bureaucracy do something because "it's policy" or "it's standard procedure"? These are shortcuts we not only take without thinking, we take them so we don't have to think. Why should algorithms be any different?
In each case you mention, it is NOT the person at the bottom of the totem pole who is the actual decision-maker.
Perhaps it should be in some cases - when it comes to driving a truck or more realistically flying a mostly-automated commercial jet, he's the one with the license, he should have the authority to make decisions and anyone such as his manager trying to coerce him to "obey the computer or be fired" should be criminally charged with interfering with a licensed truck driver or pilot while they were operating a truck or plane.
In the case of the clerk, the decision-maker is the judge, the clerk is just a "mechanical turk/human robot."
Why not washing machines?
Because algorithms do not kill people, people do.
What? When? I would absolutely LOVE for people in power to be accountable for their actions! If only there wasn't this thing called... money.
Making an example of one every now and then to please the public is not enough. We all play by the same rules or we don't play at all.
I tend to rant.
...The age of blaming the algorithm.
We Hold People With Power To Account.
Huh? We do? News to me. Actually I think current headlines demonstrate that we don't.
Why Not Algorithms?
Because you can't fine and imprison an algorithm. A similar problem exists with holding corporations accountable. It's easy to solve but we've refused to do it for the last 50-100 years, why start now?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
long division should be punished, for the pain it has inflicted on countless schoolkids.
Nullius in verba
...that algorithms are People. And People have Rights. Give algorithms the vote!!
If we already define corporations as persons under the law, why not make algorithms persons, too?
Then we can hold algorithms to account and not sound like the blithering idiots in doing so.
Whenever I make use of an errant algorithm in my computations I can't get anyone to old the algorithm accountable. Instead they just yell at me.
Face it, America is a vassal state for Saudi Arabia. You're their twink bitch. You do what they tell you.